Nats and reproductive rights

210 comments on “Nats and reproductive rights ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tiger Mountain 1

   28 September 2015 at 7:30 am

   it is the leafy suburbs lot who are breeding excessively in my view–given the disproportional sway that minority has over the rest of society–lets try a ‘one child’ type policy for Remuera and Epsom and see how they like it

   this is really hateful stuff from the Nats that the ‘dark kiwis’ among us will no doubt buy into even if it never becomes a full reality, it is for the New Zealanders that indulge in the country’s second favourite pastime–Beneficiary Bashing; this serving of raw meat includes memes such as–“don’t have children if you can’t afford to raise them” etc., of course some of this criticism will come from people in receipt of WFF in work tax credits!

   this is super nanny statism with a side of nasty NZ Nat style totalitarian fantasy, though I don’t underestimate what they are trying to do as evidenced by WINZ which has made it so difficult and unpleasant to access entitlements that numbers receiving “job seeker support” are falling while unemployment is rising
2. RedBaronCV 2

   28 September 2015 at 7:41 am

   Usual sickko stuff from the NActs.

   Basically Tolley is discussing a very very few families – go on journo’s ask just how many they are? and then spreading that out into “we need to control all of what..?”
   Solo mothers, Low income families somthing else?

   Notice how it is always couched in terms of controlling “her” reproductive capacity very sexist (don’t see them sending letters to the boys demanding condom use , vasectomies after they have abandoned their children to the welfare).

   and also very income related. As if people set out to be solo parents while the state colludes with non caring parent to ensure no money is paid over.

   I’ll believe them when they start demanding that convicted white collar crims & tax evaders (who cost society heaps) have their reproductive rights taken away from them.

   If they were serious they would offer free contraception for both sexes across the board
3. Rosemary McDonald 3

   28 September 2015 at 8:01 am

   “”I mean, I know of cases that CYF have taken the sixth and seventh baby from.”

   Anne Tolley from above link.

   I once fostered a newborn who was the seventh child taken from the same parents…is Tolley referring to the same case? Or are there more than one?

   Think about that for a minute.

   If that were your sister repeatedly getting pregnant, giving birth and then having the baby taken by authorities because of harm or strong risk of harm…the grief that goes with that scenario…what would you be advising?

   The national shame that is child abuse and neglect in New Zealand needs totally multi party solutions.

   And yes, Red BaronCV…free contraception for all…but are you going to make sure it is used?

   I’m looking forward to reading comments about this issue.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1

     28 September 2015 at 8:11 am

     Geez, I dunno, how about addressing the actual causes of poverty and inequality as opposed to vile hate-speech against the victims?

     Anyone who proposes or supports this fascism belongs in prison.
     • Rosemary McDonald 3.1.1

       28 September 2015 at 11:33 am

       http://campaign.labour.org.nz/kids_in_poverty_not_something_to_sweep_under_the_carpet

       305,000 children living in poverty, and,

       http://www.cyf.govt.nz/about-us/key-statistics/

       “As at 31 March 2015, compared to 31 March 2014, there were more:
       children or young people in the custody of the Chief Executive (5,133 compared to 5,075, a 1 per cent increase)
       children or young people in care and protection out of home placements (4,119 compared to 4,043, a 2 per cent increase).
       …and there were fewer:”

       So, if poverty is the entire cause of family dysfunction to the point of children being removed from the parents….how come there are not 305,000 children in the direct care of cyfs?

       Please…this is too important an issue for merely repeating all the usual ideological cliches.

       I said in my original comment….think for a minute.

       What is wrong with a woman being strongly advised to stop having any more children until she is in a position to take proper care and responsibility to the ones she already has?

       Or is it somehow OK for these women to be repeatedly giving birth and having the baby taken from them…?

       How many women commenting here would find that acceptable for themselves…or their sisters?

       I for one would have no problems with sitting such a one down and having a serious talk about birth control….about her exercising the power she has to control her fertility. I’d tell her in no uncertain terms that having two children and caring for them properly is infinitely better than having seven being taken into care.

       And yes Scotty…I am making ‘coal face’ comments…. “good on you for mucking in and getting your hands dirty”… .over 60 foster children have been in my care.

       All of them needed to be placed in a safer home.

       And yes, CYFs does have a ‘dump and run’ culture….which is why we quit after eight years of fostering….and a complaint about cyfs to the Children’s Commission.

       So TS pundits….are you going to keep up the usual ideologically constipated claptrap or are you willing to see this whole issue for what it is?

       A national tragedy and embarrassment.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1

         28 September 2015 at 12:40 pm

         If you think addressing the causes of poverty is ideological claptrap, and you’re capable of constructing an entirely false narrative (“how come there are not 305,000 children in the direct care of cyfs?” – seriously: you’re so “committed” to doing something your first refuge is witless gibberish – pfft.) , you’re making it worse.

         Get down off your moral high horse: refusing to address the causes of tragedy is a coward’s way out.
       • tracey 3.1.1.2

         28 September 2015 at 12:47 pm

         “What is wrong with a woman being strongly advised to stop having any more children until she is in a position to take proper care and responsibility to the ones she already has?”

         Nothing. Removing her ability to care for her existing children, and MAKING he have an IUD medically inserted might be wrong.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.2.1

           28 September 2015 at 12:53 pm

           What is wrong with a woman being strongly advised to stop having any more children until she is in a position to take proper care and responsibility to the ones she already has?

           For one thing, it’s ideological bullshit.

           …families with the most children in state care would be “least likely” to receive contraceptive advice….The level of resistance and disengagement would tell me it would be almost impossible.

           Aotearoa NZ Association of Social Workers chief executive Lucy Stanford-Reed.
       • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.3

         28 September 2015 at 1:35 pm

         … .over 60 foster children have been in my care.

         ….which is why we quit after eight years of fostering….

         So, that would be eight children per year that you were fostering?

         I’d say that you were part of the problem for those children.
         • Rosemary McDonald 3.1.1.3.1

           28 September 2015 at 3:28 pm

           Really Draco T Bastard…have I got that right? The ‘bastard’ bit?

           Not that I should have to explain…but then again, knowledge is power and all that…

           We signed up for emergency, short term and respite care only as our own particular circumstances did not permit us to commit to longer than that.

           We had three school age children of our own at the time as well as my partner being severely physically disabled.

           Our theory…and we can be forgiven for being a bit naive…was that the 28 day Care and Protection order (under which most of our kids came to us) was ample time for a) the parent to realise that the shit had hit the fan and they needed to get it together to get their kids back, b) cyfs social workers to get their shit together and assist the parents to get their’s together and in the absence of a and or b..c) was time for the social workers to find a suitable long term placement for the child/ren.

           We extended the 28 day limit on more than one occasion in the hope that a/b or c would happen.

           We advocated strongly on behalf of our foster children….all the way to the child’s lawyer and the children’s commission.

           Cyfs treat foster parents like dirt…our mantra became ‘bed and board’, as this was all the social workers thought we provided.

           We had no skills, we had no experience, we had no right to opine as to what we thought a particular child might need in the way of extra help after having them live a part of our family for months.

           You have no idea of the trauma some of our foster children had endured before coming into our care.

           You have no idea of the trauma our own kids experienced when some of their foster siblings displayed the effects of their trauma.

           Draco T Bastard…I am part of the problem, eh?

           I could write much, much, more…but I’m sure you are aware of the “Lashlie Effect”.
           • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.3.1.1

             28 September 2015 at 4:21 pm

             I am part of the problem, eh?

             Sorry about that. I shouldn’t have been so judgemental.

             I was taken by the short term implied and how damaging that itself would be to the children. They’ll get a feeling of instability likely resulting in trust issues and other psychological damage exacerbating the damage from their broken home.

             And, no, I’d not expect parents who are so fucked up that CYFs are taking their children away to pull themselves together in 28 days

             But all of that’s actually CYFs getting it wrong.

             but I’m sure you are aware of the “Lashlie Effect”.

             Nope, never heard of it and neither has Google or Wikipedia.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               28 September 2015 at 4:31 pm

               She probably means Celia Lashlie, who doesn’t have an effect named after her. She was good at agreeing with Leighton Smith, though.
             • Rosemary McDonald …

               28 September 2015 at 4:46 pm

               “Lashlie Effect”.

               http://tvnz.co.nz/content/38544/2556418/article.html

               “The primary teachers’ union is supporting a top level investigation into the sacking of a senior manager in Special Education Services.

               Nelson’s former Special Education Services manager Celia Lashlie was fired after giving a speech and media interview about the likelihood of a five-year-old at-risk child going on to become a killer.”

               Lashlie gave a speech where she referred to a generic at risk child, fired for’identifying’ a specific child.

               Ironically….Nick Smith championed her right to free speech in the House…http://www.vdig.net/hansard/archive.jsp?y=2001&m=05&d=02&o=28&p=39

               “I want to talk about the serious issue of the plight of Celia Lashlie. A fortnight ago today, Celia Lashlie spoke to a justice meeting here in Wellington. She spoke of the sorts of issues this House should be debating. She talked of a 5-year-old child who, she says, is on the road to prison and is likely to kill someone along the way; a 5-year-old child whose mother has three other children to three different fathers; a child who, at 18 months, is likely to have been put to sleep by having cannabis smoke blown in his nose; a child in a desperate state. She spoke about the frustration she has, as manager of Nelson’s Specialist Education Services, at not being able to get the resources to deal with that sort of child.”

               And nothing changes.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 28 September 2015 at 4:52 pm

                 So “the Lashlie Effect” is when right wing nut jobs seize upon and exploit the personal anecdotes of a disaffected state employee. Like Kim Davis.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   28 September 2015 at 4:57 pm

                   +1

                   Seems like it.
       • Sabine 3.1.1.4

         28 September 2015 at 4:25 pm

         What is wrong is making Women the sole responsible person for children.

         Despite what everyone may believe the 305,000 children living in poverty were not delivered by the stork nor do they grew under cabbage leaves of some women living of a benefits somewhere.

         They are made by two adults fucking without appropriate protection against pregnancy, some of these children were conceived when the parents might have had money, might have been still living together, might still have been married, or might have been still alive. Single mothers and fathers include divorced parents, widowed parents, seperated parents etc etc. Might we want to take this into account just for a moment.

         So why not advocate free vasectomies for all boys/men from age 16 – when ever they can prove that they have enough to support their children? After all it is reversible, does not incur monthly costs for over 25 – 35 years and the taking of hormons that may have various side effects, and you know, is easy to manage.

         Why shame and blame only the women for the children on the benefit?

         Oh, its because they are the ones pregnant and doing the pushing/birthing, and thus can’t hide the fact that a child was made? While a bloke might just walk away and say surely its not mine? ?

         So we are happy to go back to the middle ages? shaming did not stop teh wimminz from having teh sex outside of marriage? cutting /removing the Domestic Purpose Benefit (which does not exist anymore) did not stop teh women peoplez from having teh sex every now and then? Damn you, lets force you to take this pill, or this metal thing, or this patch or this and this and that on you so you can’t reproduce.

         Ok, so lets discuss forcing/enticing/coercing women on ‘a’ benefit (maybe a housing allowance will be enough? Or maybe an emergency benefit? Or maybe even an unemployment benefit? ) to have invasive / longterm birthcontroll that may or may not affect their future ability to become pregnant, once they prove that they earn enough to support their children on their own, as we all know, men are not responsible for making children?

         IF we want this discussion, we should include the Sperm carrier as much as the Egg carrier, as alone by themselves no babies are made . It takes two to tango.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.4.1

           28 September 2015 at 4:55 pm

           They are made by two adults fucking without appropriate protection against pregnancy, some of these children were conceived when the parents might have had money, might have been still living together, might still have been married, or might have been still alive.

           1. Contraceptives aren’t perfect
           2. “Some” = 66%
           • Sabine 3.1.1.4.1.1

             28 September 2015 at 5:52 pm

             no contraceptive are not at all perfect.

             when people have sex without contraception, condoms, tubes tied, vasectomies they often make babies.

             The Sole Parent Benefit in NZ has replaced the Domestice Purpose Benefit, and all provides benefits to all ‘sole’ parents, including man, divorced single parents, widowed parents (as the widowers benefits which helped Mr. Key to survive while he was a child that his mother could not afford on her own, but she still had…thinking she was save and married when she had the child) was the first of the benefits to be cut. But then who cares about a hand full of widows, or widowers…

             other then that you have got nothing to say?

             Contraception for Man?
             Better Sex Ed for young ones?
             What about abusing fathers?
             Better working conditions?
             Better pay scales for the minimum wagers?

             Nothing? Nix? Zilch? Nada?

             awesome.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               28 September 2015 at 6:51 pm

               when people have sex without contraception, condoms, tubes tied, vasectomies they often make babies.

               My point was that even when people take all precautions they can still conceive and that 66% is more than “some”.
               • sabine …

                 28 September 2015 at 7:07 pm

                 so we are nitpicking?
                 did i say something that was wrong? Or are you just upset that i did not look up numbers?

                 I still don’t get what you are trying to say?
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   28 September 2015 at 8:07 pm

                   I’ll say you’re barking up the wrong tree. Poverty and abuse has increased markedly over the last thirty years, in line with all sane expectations of neo-liberal policies.

                   The obvious solution is to stop pissing into the wind and reverse the policies that are causing the problem.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   28 September 2015 at 9:08 pm

                   You gave it all the wrong tilt.

                   By ignoring that contraceptives fail you implied that it was always the peoples fault.
                   By saying “some” you made it sound as if a minority of people conceived in a relationship and then circumstances changed rather than the majority.

                   Language is powerful and so you should be careful of what you say and how you say it.
     • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.1.2

       28 September 2015 at 12:16 pm

       Anyone who proposes or supports this fascism belongs in prison.

       Isn’t that a bit…fascist… of you?
       • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.1

         28 September 2015 at 8:23 pm

         I’m comfortable with judicial sanction of the Slobodans of this world.
     • Nessalt 3.1.3

       28 September 2015 at 2:18 pm

       wow, so a conversation about an ambulance at the bottom can’t be had alongside one about a fence at the top. Way to make sure nothing ever gets done because you hate consensus.

       What about the victims of your “victims”? Stopping society having the concurrent discussions is surely facist oppression for not thinking of their rights.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.3.1

         28 September 2015 at 2:49 pm

         The fact is that no-one is constructing the fence at the top, despite being told to over and over and over again. Instead, you just keep on proposing the same ineffectual self-serving shite.

         So excuse me for calling you trash – stop embodying it and I’ll stop saying so.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.3.1.1

           28 September 2015 at 4:22 pm

           +1111
         • Nessalt 3.1.3.1.2

           30 September 2015 at 8:49 am

           whereas you just rant and rave and abuse everyone who disagrees with you. You are such an intellectual light weight it’s no wonder the policies you champion get nowhere. it’s not because others are stupid, it’s because you are so blind to your own ignorance you have the honest belief you are a genius. you are the embodiment of the narcissism of social media generation.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.3.1.2.1

             30 September 2015 at 10:58 am

             If pointing out that your “fence at the top” was torn down in the 1980s is ignorant, so be it.

             I note your avoidance of that topic in favour of projecting your character onto me.
       • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.3.2

         28 September 2015 at 9:13 pm

         Forcing someone to use birth control is one step away from sterilising them without their consent, and it certainly seems to resemble sexual assualt to me, depending on what sort of birth control you force them to use. (many are quite intimate to apply!) The only two types I can think of that wouldn’t amount to sexual assualt to force on someone still amount to forced administration of drugs, which we also shouldn’t do. (That would be forcing them to take hormonal birth control injections or pills)

         If the State really thinks it’s appropriate to proxy their medical decisions and force them to take medication, they should do it the only way there’s precedent to do it: have them committed to be treated for mental health problems. But we all know if they could do that, they would, so they have no argument to make here to force people into taking contraception.
   • scotty 3.2

     28 September 2015 at 8:11 am

     ‘but are you going to make sure it is used?’

     Are you making yourself available Rosemary? – good on you for mucking in and getting your hands dirty .
   • Karen 3.3

     28 September 2015 at 10:24 am

     Maybe find out why?

     In my experience people have a child because they want to have a child (unless it was an accidental pregnancy). If the baby is taken away then they try again.

     Instead of threatening compulsory sterilisation or contraception how about putting lots of resources into helping that family look after any child they have? Many have come from dysfunctional families themselves and it will take a lot of resources to provide the kind of supportive (not punitive) help that is required. The upside is that the next generation will be better equipped.

     Social services have been so run down in this country there is very little help available.
     • tracey 3.3.1

       28 September 2015 at 11:01 am

       I met with 2 seasoned social workers from CYPFS the other day. They talked at length about how they think and consult and work with the family long and hard before removing a child, and when they do remove a child, work hard to try and get the child back to the family.

       I have no reason to believe they were lying. Then Tolley and others commented on this report. It’s like there are 2 different CYPFS… one being sued for political purposes and one trying to help children with limited money, resource and support.
       • Karen 3.3.1.1

         28 September 2015 at 12:05 pm

         I wasn’t suggesting social workers do not try to keep children within a family. The problem is that some families need far more support than individual social workers can provide, particularly as most social workers have too heavy a work load and are unable to build up enough trust over a long enough period to be truly effective. There is a also a very high turnover as many get burnt out. I say that as someone who has been a social worker, albeit a long time ago and not with CYPFS.

         There is not nearly enough good free addiction treatment available, women’s refuges are always struggling financially, many NGOs working in social service areas spend half their time trying to get funding. There is too little acknowledge of the stress created through poor housing and low incomes, both factors social workers generally can not do much about. Whanau Ora is a good concept but the funding for it was taken from various other schemes that were doing a good job, but had to close down through lack of money. Meanwhile Whanau Ora has taken a very long time to get its act together.

         There needs to be a much more holistic approach.
         • tracey 3.3.1.1.1

           28 September 2015 at 12:15 pm

           I wasn’t meaning to suggest your were. I also said sued instead of used… Freudian slip maybe 😉
         • Matthew Whitehead 3.3.1.1.2

           28 September 2015 at 9:20 pm

           That, and the government needs to accept that this area is woefully under-resourced, especially in prevention, and actually apply some priority to the problem, both in funding, manpower, and legislative attention.
   • tracey 3.4

     28 September 2015 at 10:58 am

     I’ve been wondering how come it has taken nearly 7 years in Government, and longer for some who were in Opposition before that, to realize the children are being failed by us all. Tolley spoke last week with such bewilderment and horror about how CYPFS is failing children you could be forgiven for thinking she and Paula never knew, despite both holding the portfolio

     Then their is the churlish meme she is perpetuating that CYPFS is wrong focusing on highly at risk children and budgets tot he detriment of long term outcomes, as though they magically decide that all by themselves without any Ministerial input…

     It’s a disgrace, all of it.
   • Naki man 3.5

     28 September 2015 at 11:46 am

     Good on you Rosemary McDonald, nice to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about and has done something to help with the issue.

     There is no way these scumbags should be able to continually breed children to abuse, I say neuter the fuckers but this government is way to pc for that to happen.
     • Rosemary McDonald 3.5.1

       28 September 2015 at 12:23 pm

       I find the use of the expressions “scumbags” and “fuckers” to be distasteful Naki man.

       Whatever one’s initial visceral reaction may be to a mother who is given the option by cyfs to either keep this latest baby, or refuse their father entry into the family home because he has raped your two previous three month old babies ….and chooses to not to reject the father….(and I kid you not)….there is no need for such vitriolic disrespect.

       The reality is that some babies are conceived and gestated and born with complete and utter casualness.

       Not many.

       But some.

       And it is the mothers of these babies that need serious contraceptive intervention.

       If this opinion puts me slightly to the right of Attila the Hun…so be it.
       • tracey 3.5.1.1

         28 September 2015 at 12:29 pm

         You agree Dad needs to be contraceptived too, right? And in this case, jailed. I presume he was jailed for the rapes?
         • Rosemary McDonald 3.5.1.1.1

           28 September 2015 at 3:48 pm

           Tracey…”Dad”…we came to refer to this lifeform as ‘sperm donors’.

           “I presume he was jailed for the rapes?”

           I’m not sure…probably not as he was around to get into the next, and nearly the next…..

           You need hard evidence for a conviction….

           and may I invoke the “Lashlie Effect” here?

           It is really hard not to speak in specifics, its really wrong to generalise about the children we cared for and about.

           As an addendum to my response to DT Bastard’s abuse …. after eight years, there was just one social worker in the local large office who we were willing to deal with.

           She wore sensible shoes, was no nonsense, had an expectation that the parent/s would step up to the plate and accept help to sort their shit.

           And if that was not going to happen…and you can tell…she would move heaven and earth to get that child into a secure long term placement as quickly as possible.

           She did not say dumb stuff like ” he’s only two, he doesn’t understand”, when as a foster parent you wave a big red flag that this wee kid silently weeps as he is returning from access with his three sibs who are in another foster home…together.

           We never cared for a kid that did not need to be in care.

           We just hated what cyfs did with them afterwards.

           We honestly believed that by trying to work within the cyfs system we were just facilitating more abuse and neglect.
         • Sabine 3.5.1.1.2

           28 September 2015 at 6:00 pm

           no tracey,
           well some don’t get jailed, they get name suppression for being a prominent new zealander that can’t be named, lest his victims will be named. blahblablah
   • tracey 3.6

     28 September 2015 at 12:42 pm

     I’d really like to hear more about the experience of being a foster parent Rosemary. How are you supported and what is it like doing this crucial role for all of us? maybe a guest post in this?
     • Rosemary McDonald 3.6.1

       28 September 2015 at 6:38 pm

       “maybe a guest post in this?”

       Hell no.

       And subject myself to shit slinging by the OAB /DTB bully boy gang?
       • One Anonymous Bloke 3.6.1.1

         28 September 2015 at 7:56 pm

         Oh you poor wee shrinking violet, it was you who accused others of constipated ideology before you embarked on your ideological rant. Throwing shit around but as soon as the boot’s on the other foot you’re being bullied? Pfft.

         Whether you like it or not, the roots of violence are economic as well as social. Some of us want our government to pay attention to these facts because we aren’t comfortable with infant mortality.

         There is no such thing as the “Lashlie Effect”. Do you honestly believe inventing non-existent phenomena is a positive contribution? At least you aren’t a twisted sadist like Naki Trash I guess.
         • Matthew Whitehead 3.6.1.1.1

           28 September 2015 at 9:31 pm

           Hey asshole. You want to sign your name to that abuse? 🙂

           Rosemary is at least engaging even if her experiences have left her with some extreme positions. (Probably because she’s dealing with a wholly inadequate state support system that can’t do crap to stop this problem re-uccuring)

           Commenting on a thread and going full author on your own opinions are two very different steps. Rosemary has the right not to want to take the jump without you trying to force your way down her throat kicking and screaming, and trust me when I say dealing with unruly commenters is its own special type of hell.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 3.6.1.1.1.1

             28 September 2015 at 9:43 pm

             Rosemary has the right not to make judgemental passive-aggressive comments.

             You have the right to learn the difference between robust rebuttal and a personal attack.

             Perhaps you lack the wit.
   • joe90 3.7

     28 September 2015 at 2:21 pm

     Amongst it all there’s a fucking big elephant being ignored – unmet mental health needs and the corresponding inter agency pass the parcel shenanigans, mental health versus personality disorder.
4. Naturesong 4

   28 September 2015 at 8:07 am

   I thought we had put this to bed a century ago .

   Organised New Zealand eugenics groups in the early 1900s advocated sterilising those who were ‘unfit’ to breed. They urged upper-class and middle-class women to stop using contraception and to breed more, to stop the country being dominated by ‘defectives’
   • sabine 4.1

     28 September 2015 at 8:38 am

     We need to be very careful that we don’t run into a fully governmental funded eugenics programm. also if the children of rich people end up causig trouble (like that Holmes Girl) or are getting abused by their parents, will the same governmental care be applied? Or is it just young women that have gotten pregnant, like Paula Bennett once upon a time?
     • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1

       28 September 2015 at 8:43 am

       A good line of attack would be to go after the “doctors” who break their oaths to collaborate with the National Party. Start with formal complaints against them to the medical council and the HRC. Inform the UN.
       • Naturesong 4.1.1.1

         28 September 2015 at 8:46 am

         Has that been tried with the MSD “welfare addiction” doctors?
         • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1.1

           28 September 2015 at 8:59 am

           Their code of ethics (pdf) says:

           All medical practitioners, including those who may not be engaged directly in clinical practice, will acknowledge and accept the following Principles of Ethical Behaviour:
           1. Consider the health and well being of the patient to be your first priority.
           2. Respect the rights, autonomy and freedom of choice of the patient…

           So who's going to prescribe contraception or perform surgery against their victim's will? And how soon after that will the police have to get involved?
           • weka 4.1.1.1.1.1

             28 September 2015 at 10:00 am

             They won’t have to perform against the patient’s will because the state will have coerced the person long before they appear in front of the surgeon. Or the surgery etc is justified on the grounds that if it doesn’t happen the patient will lose their income, so it’s in the best interests of the patient. Easy outs.

             btw, there have been people practicing medicine unethically since there’s been a medical profession. Society’s not been too bothered before and it’s already sanctioning the ghettoisation of beneficiaries.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               28 September 2015 at 8:39 pm

               Good points both. I see Slobodan Tolley is backing down.
               • weka …

                 28 September 2015 at 8:42 pm

                 It’s always hard to tell in these situations if people like Tolley are just incredibly stupid, or if this was simply another dog whistle/diversionary tactic.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   28 September 2015 at 8:53 pm

                   Her crass provocation of educators suggests the former. Her academic record supports the thesis.
           • tracey 4.1.1.1.1.2

             28 September 2015 at 11:01 am

             The Law trumps a code of ethics.
5. ianmac 5

   28 September 2015 at 8:59 am

   Decades ago thousands of women were sterilised by Government ticket booths where unbeknownst to the women, they were zapped with Xrays. Outcry when discovered of course. I think that this may have been in India.
6. Lucy 6

   28 September 2015 at 9:07 am

   If CYF is removing children from the same parents then wouldn’t the money that is paid to foster parents be better used teaching those parents proper parenting skills and life skills. I knew a woman who had had a few children removed by CYFs and her problem was the men she was getting involved in. But she continued to have children because removing a child meant that she was grieving and thought that a new baby would replace the child that had been stolen.
   If you start having babies at 14 you have no skills to bring them up and our society dumps you on the dpb with no support or care.
   • tracey 6.1

     28 September 2015 at 11:08 am

     Agreed. Also it needs to start earlier. With programmes in schools for girls to build their self esteem, their sense of self and value and their ability to navigate the shark infested waters that are adolescence and looking for love from boys who just want sex and babies who will love them forever.

     Such programmes can be as simple as self defence classes which Ms Bennett decided cost too much.

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10721930

     Let’s fund the teaching of all our children of respect in relationships etc… it’s not about teaching them about how to have sex but about how to have relationships and what it all means

     http://helpauckland.org.nz/prevention/existing-initiatives-teenagers

     Fund THAT Tolley!
     • Rosie 6.1.1

       28 September 2015 at 11:31 am

       +1 tracey.

       Teaching respect and safety would be a great foundation for young people who are at a point where they’re about to become sexually active.
       • tracey 6.1.1.1

         28 September 2015 at 11:38 am

         BUT it doesn’t happen properly or extensively because of the minority of voices such as Colin Craig’s and Family First.

         Being able to afford and access abortions if mistakes are made does not mean the middle and wealthy classes chidlren are not impacted by these issues.
         • Rosie 6.1.1.1.1

           28 September 2015 at 11:57 am

           “Being able to afford and access abortions if mistakes are made does not mean the middle and wealthy classes chidlren are not impacted by these issues.”

           Exactly. The programmes initiated by RPE and funded by MOH in Auckland schools, mentioned in your link, would benefit all social groups in NZ. These are fundamentals all young people need to learn about. Helps them gain a broader more holistic view of what sex is about too. Would be great if such programmes were available in all schools.

           You could only imagine the brakes groups the Cons and family first would put in such programmes. They would prefer if sex ed was limited to “abstinence kids! No sex before marriage!”, like the loopy silver ring thing they had in the States.
           • tracey 6.1.1.1.1.1

             28 September 2015 at 12:44 pm

             It is always odd to me that whenever a conservative hears sex education they obviously start imaging positions… whereas most sex ed programmes are about respect, biology, consequences, self worth and so on…
     • red-blooded 6.1.2

       28 September 2015 at 6:12 pm

       Hey, tracey, I work in a coed school – please don’t assume that boys are automatically “sharks” or “just want sex”. Boys are just as emotionally complex as girls and plenty of them want intimacy and love.

       I know that’s not the main issue being discussed, and I agree with the general idea that relationship skills should be taught at school and (hopefully) at home. I don’t think we have to assume that all girls or women who have unplanned pregnancies have been in some way abused, though.
7. Puddleglum 7

   28 September 2015 at 9:18 am

   It makes you wonder what ever happened to this government’s promise of ‘full wrap-around support’ for those in most need.
   • Puddleglum 7.1

     28 September 2015 at 9:23 am

     Here’s a link about the ‘wrap-around’ support – see p. 3, para 11, last bullet point:

     “11. In August 2011, Cabinet agreed that welfare assistance for 16 – 19 year olds be reformed to:
     · discourage an early reliance on welfare receipt
     · require teens to remain in education or training, or to be in work, in return for assistance
     · ensure that they learn good budgeting skills so that they are better able to manage their money, and have the strategies to cope when resources are limited
     · support the development of their parenting skills (teen parents only)
     · ensure that cost is not a barrier to children of teen parents accessing childcare
     · support teens to access services including, where appropriate, family planning services, to address a range of needs that will enhance longer-term outcomes
     · provide wrap-around support to improve social outcomes for teens and their children.“
     • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1

       28 September 2015 at 9:30 am

       It’s a meaningless euphemism. Are they talking about some sort of semi-rigid Gladwrap? Or get the fuck into line or you’ll be going to see the Doctor?
       • tracey 7.1.1.1

         28 September 2015 at 11:09 am

         or the blanket they place around you immediately after you have the contraceptive device implanted.

         Murmurs of this kind at least are an admission that we have failed and the discussion is now about the answer.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1.1

           28 September 2015 at 9:02 pm

           The answer is to destroy the Douglas/Richardson legacy. Drag the SOE model into the public square and cut its head off. Restore human rights and the rule of law.

           Get a camel, pass it through the eye of a needle, then make Tories drink the result.
     • Chris 7.1.2

       28 September 2015 at 10:15 am

       There are already changes that reflect this sort of sentiment designed to help lessen the outrage later on, like less money and a more stringent work test if a subsequent child is born while in receipt of a benefit. The plans are certainly there to do it. The nats were “dismissing” work testing benefits paid for caring for children and time-limiting any benefits way back in the 1990s. Look what we’ve got now? They’re going to try to make it happen, all right.
       • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2.1

         28 September 2015 at 10:47 am

         +1

         As far as I can make out the right wing have been in favour of eugenics since forever.
         • Stuart Munro 7.1.2.1.1

           28 September 2015 at 12:23 pm

           They wouldn’t be if they weren’t confident they’d control the assessment criteria – at least half of Gnats are below average.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.2

     28 September 2015 at 9:29 am

     They’ve wrapped it up and closed it down – exactly as planned.

     If National say that they’re going to be nice to the poor they mean the exact opposite. The only people they care about is the 1% and they’ll do anything to ensure that the rest of the population works to make them richer no matter how much damage it does to society. That’s what Nationals attacks on beneficiaries is all about – forcing people to work to make the 1% richer.
8. Rosie 8

   28 September 2015 at 9:21 am

   I see the word eugenics mentioned a few times in the comments. There is absolutely no other word for it: A group within society has been isolated and targeted and the state suggests they want to intervene to prevent reproduction within this group, with no regard for the rights of those people. This becomes a human rights issue.

   Would be better for ALL people to be able to access free contraception through well funded family planning centres. Sexual health and contraception should be a well integrated part of a public health system, no different from say, dentistry, which also should be free for ALL people.

   Agree with Red Baron re Tolley’s statement about the responsibility for contraception falling to women. She talks about tubal ligation, specifically for beneficiaries. Again, tubal ligation should be accessible to ALL women, as should long term contraception such as the pill, or injection but options for men need to be free too, such as vasectomies. Men need to share an equal responsibility in family planning.

   And condoms for EVERYONE! No one should be having to pay for the basics such as condoms.
   • northshoredoc 8.1

     28 September 2015 at 10:02 am

     Hi Rosie

     Long and short acting contraception and condoms are all fully funded by PHARMAC and freely available.
     • Rosie 8.1.1

       28 September 2015 at 10:42 am

       Are they really? For every single person regardless of income? Are they absolutely free?I wasn’t aware of that.

       We had to pay for a vasectomy when we got married two decades ago. Are they now free? Prior to that we had to pay for condoms. (They aren’t cheap) We enquired at family planning about free contraception but weren’t eligible.

       Has it now changed? Where do people go to get this free contraception? Do you, as a Dr, write prescriptions for patients?

       Serious question.
       • weka 8.1.1.1

         28 September 2015 at 10:47 am

         “Do you, as a Dr, write prescriptions for patients?”

         And do you charge them for the consult?

         In addition to contraception needing to be free, it also needs to be easily accessible.
       • northshoredoc 8.1.1.2

         28 September 2015 at 10:53 am

         Hi Rosie

         Family planning has th most comprehensive answers to your questions.

         http://www.familyplanning.org.nz/news/2014/comparing-the-cost-of-contraception
         • Rosie 8.1.1.2.1

           28 September 2015 at 11:24 am

           Thank you. I read through, nothing has changed, eg: from the family planning page for consultations:

           Under 22: Free
           22 and over with Community Services Card: $5.00
           22 and over with no Community Services Card: $27.00

           Access to low cost contraception is NOT free. I see some women who fit into the above category can get some hormone contraception free and condoms are $5 for 144. Great, but that should be for everyone, and it isn’t.

           It’s not universally available.

           So when you are saying some contraceptives are “fully funded by PHARMAC and freely available” you aren’t really telling the truth.

           So instead of the National Government going down this ideologically driven eugenics path, they could instead do the right thing for society as a whole by including universal low cost and free family planning into the public health system.

           Then people have the choice, regardless of income, on how they plan their families. There’s a catch there though, for the nats. Such a move would eliminate their eugenics drive. Having universal access to contraception puts people on an equal footing, and they don’t want that.
           • northshoredoc 8.1.1.2.1.1

             28 September 2015 at 11:58 am

             Hi Rosie

             I agree I don’t believe there is any reason to have the $5.00 part charge for those who can access a community services card. That being said if people are unable to motivate themselves to pay around $10 per annum for contraception then it is far less of a financial issue and far more of an education al one in my opinion.
             • Rosie …

               28 September 2015 at 12:38 pm

               $10 per annum on contraception is actually more like $144 per annum, if you’re using condoms, assuming a pack of 12 will last a month…………

               And that figure is the cheapest price on the market for non comms service card holders, that the FP put on it, in your link.

               They may sound like a small dent in the budget to you but for people who have been stuck on the same wages for 6 years with their accommodation costs and bills rising like an overwhelming tide, that amount makes a difference. Far better if access to contraception was universal, like the common drug prescription. It is a health issue after all.
               • Rosie …

                 28 September 2015 at 3:43 pm

                 Apologies Doc. Just checked FP link re costs again. You CAN get condoms on prescription for $5 for 144 even if you’re not a comms service card holder.

                 At this price, theoretically, no one should be paying the full market place price of $12 – $20 dollars per 12 pack.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               28 September 2015 at 12:45 pm

               That’s a great argument for not charging as well. As you say, it’s not the money but the education. I suspect that a lot of people don’t even know that they can get cheap contraceptives through Family Planning.
               • weka …

                 28 September 2015 at 1:54 pm

                 It’s still unclear from this conversation but as far as I can tell if you go to a GP to get the prescription instead of FP there will be a charge for the visit as well. Lots of people don’t live near a FP clinic.
                 • Rosie …

                   28 September 2015 at 3:45 pm

                   Yes, you will be charged. Don’t know what Doctors charge their comms services card holders for a consult though.
                   • weka …

                     28 September 2015 at 8:36 pm

                     so the people that can have cheap contraception are those that are on a CSC and can access a FP clinic during opening hours. Doesn’t sound like it’s being taken that seriously by the govt and it certainly belies that idea that there is free contraception in NZ.
           • The Chairman 8.1.1.2.1.2

             28 September 2015 at 12:29 pm

             Rosie, although not universal, from October 2012 all women on welfare and their daughters were eligible for fully subsidize long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) including injections, implants, and IUDs,

             It was a recommendation of the Welfare Working Group, headed by Paula Rebstock.

             Funding is provided through WINZ.

             Rebstock also heads the panel currently overseeing the overhaul of Child, Youth and Family, which Tolley is awaiting their recommendations. Whether or not to force sterilize apparently one of which is being considered.
             • tracey …

               28 September 2015 at 12:31 pm

               I wonder how actively they promote it, and educate the men and women who visit this WINZ you write of?
               • weka …

                 28 September 2015 at 1:52 pm

                 “Funding is provided through WINZ.”

                 Which involves another whole layer of bullshit hoop jumping that is a barrier. Also, are the doctors visits free or just the contraception?

                 If they were serious about their policy, all contraception would be free.
                 • The Chairman …

                   28 September 2015 at 3:55 pm

                   Yes, I hear what you’re saying regarding the hoop-jumping, but the bureaucracy is generally required to ensure funding isn’t handed out haphazardly.

                   From my understanding, the whole process is fully subsidised.

                   As the health budget is already stretched, cost constraints are clearly why it hasn’t been extended universally.

                   However, it does cover Tolley’s intended target group.

                   As for Tracey’s question, according to Tolley, we need to be getting in there with better contraception and family planning advice. Therefore, if the Minister in charge is saying that, clearly it’s not actively promoted well enough. Which is no doubt part of the problem.

                   I see Tolley is now backing down from her original stance. Ms Tolley says forced sterilisation is definitely not being considered.
                   • weka …

                     28 September 2015 at 8:40 pm

                     If the people most in need of support to limit family size are already in situations where they need support, then offering them support that has barriers to access is a losing proposition from the start. We’re talking about a class of people who can’t afford to take their kids to the doctor, so things like a bus trip across town to WINZ can be significant issues.

                     If they then have to pay for the doctors appt, the service isn’t fully subsidised.

                     I’d also hazard a guess that the money spent on bureaucracy needed to run the scheme is more than the money ‘wasted’ on people who wouldn’t need teh service were the service offered without the barriers.

                     None of that is surprising because the ideology behind Rebstock is anti-welfare and wellbeing. They wouldn’t know how to help people in a genuine way if Mother Teresa was part of the team.
                   • The Chairman …

                     28 September 2015 at 9:12 pm

                     I’m assuming the barrier in this case is merely the formality of filling out a form. Which could no doubt be done online, through the mail, or perhaps through the aid of a social worker with little or no added expense (or hassle) at all .

                     Are you suggesting taxpayers would approve of the added cost of providing free universal contraception, opposed to the current more targeted approach?
                   • weka …

                     28 September 2015 at 9:17 pm

                     We could be providing free contraception to CSC holders. That system is already in place. But I support free healthcare for all, and I’d put free contraception far above some other kinds healthcare we fund or subsidise (eg IVF).

                     “I’m assuming the barrier in this case is merely the formality of filling out a form. Which could no doubt be done online, through the mail, or perhaps through the aid of a social worker with little or no added expense (or hassle) at all.”

                     I seriously doubt it’s that straight forward (having lots of experience with WINZ).
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     28 September 2015 at 9:20 pm

                     The biggest barrier is poverty itself: inequality fosters distrust.
                 • The Chairman …

                   28 September 2015 at 10:02 pm

                   Yes, IMO taxpayers would be more approving of targeting it to CSC holders opposed to free universal cover.

                   Free healthcare is a wonderful thing, it’s the cost of providing it we largely struggle with.

                   What one prefers is largely subjective. In a democracy, we have to deal with what the majority prefers. In a representative democracy, we have to put up with the wishes of the party the majority preferred.

                   Generally, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be a simple, straight forward process.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     28 September 2015 at 10:10 pm

                     So the obvious goal is to simplify it.

                     A way to do that is to educate legislators in simple concepts like the rule of law, human rights, the rules of evidence, morality and ethics.

                     Legislators who choose to transgress these boundaries are acting against the national interest and are therefore legitimate military and/or judicial targets.
                   • weka …

                     28 September 2015 at 10:40 pm

                     “Generally, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be a simple, straight forward process.”

                     Theoretically. But in reality there are at least two obvious obstacles. One is its WINZ, which is a system that’s been fucked over so many times in the past 30 years that it’s now so dysfunctional that it’s probably unfixable. This doens’t mean there aren’t good people in there and sometimes good systems, but with the recent reforms it looks to me like just bizarre levels of unworkability (have you seen the paperwork involved in applying for the dole?).

                     The other is the underlying ethos, which is one of control and punishment. You can’t care for people that way, and contraceptive provision is healthcare. They start from the place of judging people as being incompetent, lazy, greedy, stupid etc. and build their system around that, which makes it a dysfunctional system. Plus all the stuff that others have been saying about the causes of poverty and what poverty causes. If the people we are concerned about (that we want to care about) were treated with respect as a starting point, then the systems would be built around respect and care rather than control and punishment. I just don’t believe that control and punishment systems can ever be competent at caring, only at punishing (and limited success at controlling).

                     /nambypamby liberalism

                     So yeah, you’d think that it would be as simply as applying online and going to a GP, but that’s only true if the system cares.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     28 September 2015 at 10:52 pm

                     Weka, I’m confident your assessment of our ability to change is unduly pessimistic. Examples abound, from the creation of the welfare state in the first place, to the response to ozone depletion, to Slobodan Tolley’s craven and dishonest retreat from her National Party values.

                     Think of it as Bill English’s enforced diet of rotten fish and rats.
                   • weka …

                     29 September 2015 at 1:59 pm

                     I’m always optimistic about the potential for change. I can’t see National and co changing any time soon and that’s what my comment was about. Tolley’s retreat is good, and a small battle victory, but let’s wait and see if NZ in general can become more compassionate again.
                 • The Chairman …

                   28 September 2015 at 11:01 pm

                   Despite the pitfalls of WINZ, it’s a cost saving objective of the Government, therefore the process would be streamlined. Unlike applying for a benefit.

                   Apparently it’s merely a special needs grant one needs to apply for.

                   This so-called healthcare policy came under fire from groups such as Action Against Poverty and the Greens.
                   • weka …

                     29 September 2015 at 11:57 am

                     I’d be surprised if an SNG for medical contraception can be applied for over the internet.

                     You say the process ‘would’ be streamlined because the govt wants to save money. That doesn’t mean it ‘is’ streamlined. Still looks like barriers to me.
                 • The Chairman …

                   29 September 2015 at 12:39 pm

                   No it doesn’t mean that. However, logic would imply so.

                   I’d be surprised if a special needs form can’t be obtained online or through the mail.

                   I think you are being a little extremist. Filling out a special needs from isn’t a major barrier – nor does it amount to ‘barriers’ as you continue to imply.
                   • weka …

                     29 September 2015 at 1:56 pm

                     “I’d be surprised if a special needs form can’t be obtained online or through the mail.”

                     See if you can find that online. I’ll be interested to hear if you can find it, and how easy it was, and if it’s clear form the webpage on what the process is for applying.

                     But it’s not just about obtaining the form. It’s whether the person you deal with is willing to do this via non-face to face means. For instance to get an SNG you have to provide proof of assets eg bank account statement. These are things that can be done electronically, but not everyone has that capacity and not all WINZ staff will work in this way. Most staff will want a face to face appointment esp if they don’t know the client. I’m talking generalities here. Perhaps the contraceptive scheme got set up differently, but I’d be surprised if it was. Most staff are overstretched as it is and I’m assuming the scheme just got loaded into the existing system of SNGs, payments, processing etc.

                     I’m not being extremist, I’m basing my opinion on many years experience with WINZ both myself and with many people I know. Things are changing re the internet, but WINZ isn’t the functional streamlining organisation you want. It’s actually full of bureaucractic inefficiencies (for a whole lot of reasons). It also routinely makes people jump through hoops that are difficult. Barriers like this are pretty normal for WINZ clients, ask around.

                     Also note, not everyone has easy internet access.

                     The things I am talking about are all existing barriers to WINZ entitlements, wellknown to most peopel working the are. It’s not unreasonable to assume that this is true for the contraceptive scheme as well, although I am happy to be proven wrong.
                 • The Chairman …

                   29 September 2015 at 2:39 pm

                   No. Implying obtaining and filling out a special needs form is such a major barrier it’s preventing people from obtaining their entitlement does seem a little extremist.

                   According to the WINZ website You can call Work and Income’s contact centre, and apply for the grant over the phone.
                   • weka …

                     29 September 2015 at 2:51 pm

                     link please.
                 • The Chairman …

                   29 September 2015 at 3:14 pm

                   Sure (re link). And it wasn’t difficult to find.

                   http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/brochures/larc-special-needs-grant-factsheet.html#GettingalongactingreversiblecontraceptionSpecialNeedsGrant3

                   Moreover, it all seems rather simple and straightforward. Can’t get much easier than this below (also from their website/link)

                   If you are eligible and have an active payment card, funds will be made available for payment immediately.

                   This means that if you’re eligible and have an active payment card, by calling while you’re at the medical centre you can have the contraceptive administered and pay for it immediately, so you don’t have to return for another appointment.
                   • weka …

                     29 September 2015 at 4:26 pm

                     Interesting, much easier than usual SNGs I think. But, if you don’t have a payment card you have to visit an office (have a think about that as a barrier). They also seem to be saying that they will take the woman’s word for how much the proceedure, GP visit etc will cost, which would be highly unusual for WINZ.

                     “by calling while you’re at the medical centre you can have the contraceptive administered and pay for it immediately, so you don’t have to return for another appointment.”

                     Which doesn’t take into account the often very long waits to get through at the call centre.

                     Still, it does seem like they’ve made special allowances in this scheme that they don’t normally, which makes me think better of it.
                 • The Chairman …

                   29 September 2015 at 5:35 pm

                   Happy to have widened your perspective on the matter.

                   Here’s a little more to ponder:

                   WINZ offices are in most town centers (and in a number of suburbs) nationwide, thus aren’t generally difficult to get too.

                   Moreover, those at the hard end, already receiving extra services, would be cardholders.

                   When ringing a many number of organizations, how long one waits tends to come down to luck and timing. WINZ are not running a 111 service.
                   • weka …

                     29 September 2015 at 7:14 pm

                     Meanwhile, the lived experience of beneficiaries and advocates is different. I live in rural NZ, so the perspective on availability of offices is not the same as yours. I also know people who don’t own a car or drivers licence, so if they live somewhere with shit public transport, or using public transport is difficult, then getting to an office isn’t as straight forward as you are saying. This is the difference between looking at what should work for the majority and what doesn’t work for the people that are struggling. WINZ are not there to serve beneficiaries unless something happens to force WINZ to behave better.

                     Since Ashburton you can’t get into most offices without an ID. Left your ID at home because the kids pulled everything out of your wallet last night and you didn’t have time to check that everything went back in? Tough shit, come back on another day.

                     I know someone who did a public transport trip to town, dropped off forms, and a few days later the WINZ staffer told him they’d been lost and he’d have to bring in a new set. Despite him being ill. If he didn’t bring them in, they wouldn’t process the application and the payment wouldn’t get made. This isn’t an unusual story.

                     “When ringing a many number of organizations, how long one waits tends to come down to luck and timing. WINZ are not running a 111 service.”

                     WINZ run the call centre as if people phoning in have nothing better to do with their time. It’s not just about luck and timing, it’s about access to essential services. GIven that WINZ will now cut benefits on the basis of beneficiaries not returning phone calls, I take that as not giving a shit rather than being the same as other organisations. We see this degree of marginalisation across the service. It isn’t comprehensive, and there are still good people working at WINZ, but most beneficiaries I know will tell multiple stories of incompetency, harassment, punishment, humiliation etc.

                     I’m glad that WINZ appear to have a better service for LARC than the rest of what they do, but I also know that what looks good on paper doesn’t necessarily translate in real life practice.
                 • The Chairman …

                   29 September 2015 at 8:17 pm

                   Generally, getting to an office is not a problem for the majority. I’m sure arrangements can be made for those in difficult situations. You’re clearly nit-picking, attempting to paint anything as a major barrier.

                   And again, this policy isn’t so much seen as a service to beneficiaries, this is largely viewed as a cost saving service. Hence, the streamlining shown above. Moreover, the flaw (in your argument) of trying to compare it with other services WINZ provide.

                   If you’ve got genuine evidence of the Government putting up a road block (preventing them from maximizing savings) on a cost saving policy they themselves implemented, then clearly (if you’re correct) there is something there for the opposition to hold the Government to task on.

                   Can you point me to any comments from the opposition to this effect?
                   • weka …

                     29 September 2015 at 8:23 pm

                     no-one wants to touch beneficiary issues politically.

                     I’m not nitpicking, I’m pointing out that your ideas about what should happen often don’t work out in practice. I think you are unaware of what the barriers are to access. It’s a pretty well known phenomenon within WINZ that too many people can’t access entitlements for various reasons.

                     But yeah, it works for National. They save money where they can without having to implement policies that empower people to better their situation and the people that fall through the cracks can
                     continue to be blamed via the dogwhistles. Win win.

                     I don’t buy the cost savings thing. So many things that the govt does are false economies. It’s not about saving money, it’s about chanelling the money where they want it to go.
                 • The Chairman …

                   29 September 2015 at 9:44 pm

                   This isn’t a beneficiary issue. This is challenging the Government’s competence in implementing policy and policy outcome. Namely, taxpayer cost savings,

                   Were any savings produced? Did they meet expectations? Were road blocks hampering effectiveness? Etc…

                   No you’re nit picking. If you genuinely considered what I was saying you would have seen I initially stated WINZ offices aren’t generally difficult to get too. Indicating, I’m aware there are some in more difficult situations. And that those smaller regional services tend to make concessions, operating differently, opposed to larger regions.

                   Moreover, you would have taken on board it’s viewed as a cost saving policy, thus is not largely comparable to other services WINZ provide. But no, you continue to make comparisons in your attempt to nit-pick.

                   You don’t buy what I’m telling you (re it’s viewed as a cost saving policy) or you don’t buy that it’s actually producing long-term savings?

                   Once again, if savings aren’t matching up to what was initially touted, then surely the opposition would be holding them to task?

                   Perhaps they’ve been to busy fueling the flag debate?
             • Rosie …

               28 September 2015 at 3:49 pm

               Hi Chairman. Happy that women who are supported by WINZ are eligible for contraception funding. Not happy that our government would consider enforced sterilisation. Their narrative around reproduction is alarming, and dark, really dark.
               • The Chairman …

                 28 September 2015 at 5:08 pm

                 Thankfully, Tolley seems to have retreated from her original stance. The public backlash must have sent her and the Party a message.

                 But given time, I suspect they’ll have another crack at it.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   28 September 2015 at 10:31 pm

                   With any luck they’ll follow the GOP into the abyss: stroking their paranoid constituency’s feeble fantasies until they become unelectable. In the meantime we still have to develop clever strategies to defend New Zealand against them.
             • RedBaronCV …

               28 September 2015 at 7:38 pm

               And why don’t they “offer” the same free contraception to the fathers and the son’s of women and children on benefits.

               The sub theme of your mother is on the benefit therefore you (the daughter) are some kind of a slut – Tolley needs to grow up and realise that males are involved in the process too but she’s too busy blamimg the women
               • The Chairman …

                 28 September 2015 at 8:39 pm

                 Indeed, like mother, like daughter seems to be the prevailing theme.

                 Perhaps the panel will recommend changes in this area.
                 • RedBaronCV …

                   28 September 2015 at 10:30 pm

                   They shouldn’t have been so immature to think this was a good idea in the first place. Then they wouldn’t needs “changes”
     • tracey 8.1.2

       28 September 2015 at 11:10 am

       You agree that education programmes in our schools would be a very effective tool though, don’t you? Teaching about relationships, respect, consequences, boys and girls etc etc?
       • northshoredoc 8.1.2.1

         28 September 2015 at 11:59 am

         I would be surprised if that wasn’t the most effective intervention in countries like NZ.
         • tracey 8.1.2.1.1

           28 September 2015 at 12:32 pm

           And yet we continue to allow minority voices to divert us from funding it. Sad indeed.
           • northshoredoc 8.1.2.1.1.1

             28 September 2015 at 2:47 pm

             Pretty sure this is funded under the hair courses within all secondary schools in NZ – although I’m not in this area so someone else maybe able to enlighten us.
   • Sabine 8.2

     28 September 2015 at 4:43 pm

     Funny, be a young women, maybe white, and healthy, and with means, go to a doctor and try to get your tubes tied.

     IT. IS. NOT.GONNA.HAPPEN.

     Cause maybe one day, when she met Charming the Prince she will want children.

     but hey if you are a young women, maybe a shade of brown or otherwise not quite white, and healthy and maybe with only little means we have a white rich Women suggest that these tubes should be tied pronto, with or without consent.

     Fuck, we have people in this country that would like to close down Planned Parenthood, cause abortions and won’t people think of the unborn, while having no issue ignoring all the born children.
9. One Anonymous Bloke 9

   28 September 2015 at 9:25 am

   Raw meat for the base. Makes me wonder what particular dismal failure they’re trying to divert attention from this time.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     28 September 2015 at 9:30 am

     +1
   • weka 9.2

     28 September 2015 at 10:06 am

     +2
10. Puckish Rogue 10

    28 September 2015 at 9:27 am

    Does anyone have more up to date figures then this?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/8284007/Adoptions-dwindle-to-all-time-low
    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1

      28 September 2015 at 9:36 am

      Yes. National’s policies lead directly to more inequality and worse outcomes, and then they assault the victims. Unemployment’s going up again I see.

      Dear Leader runs a misery factory while you cheer him on. Now you’re up to date.
      • Puckish Rogue 10.1.1

        28 September 2015 at 9:38 am

        Yes of course silly me, its all John Keys fault, very good

        Does anyone else, preferably someone that hasn’t been smoking up this early in the morning, have anymore up to date figures on adoption in NZ?
        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1

          28 September 2015 at 9:54 am

          If it were all Jon Key’s fault you could simply replace him and see an immediate improvement. Sadly, the rot and incompetence go far deeper than that.

          That’s why they need vacuous cheerleaders.
          • Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.1.1

            28 September 2015 at 9:59 am

            The point is in 1973 there were 2000 adoptions and in 2012 there 21 adoptions. Couple with the problems CYPs is having then surely this is one of the issues to be looked at?
            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1.1.1

              28 September 2015 at 10:04 am

              Why don’t you dig a little deeper into those raw numbers and see if you can find out the reasons for such a marked decrease? If you still think your disgusting bestial instincts deserve discussion after that I’ll be more than happy to set you straight.
              • Puckish Rogue …

                28 September 2015 at 10:31 am

                Its far too early to be drinking or smoking, get outside and have some fresh air it’ll do you good
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  28 September 2015 at 10:39 am

                  That’s right: your argument has zero foundation. Better shoot the messenger.
                  • Puckish Rogue …

                    28 September 2015 at 10:46 am

                    I asked a question, I didn’t pose an arguement and if you had bothered to read my first post properly rather then read the name of the poster and assume what the post was about you’d know that.
                    • weka …

                      28 September 2015 at 10:51 am

                      “I didn’t pose an arguement”

                      Yeah you did. You just did it in a passive weasly way.
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      28 September 2015 at 10:53 am

                      All you seem to be doing is demanding that children be put up for adoption. For some strange train you seem top think that children not being put up for adoption is an issue that needs addressing.
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      28 September 2015 at 10:59 am

                      …surely this is one of the issues to be looked at?

                      Have you found out the reasons for such a marked decline yet? They render your argument moot. I think you knew that already.
                    • Puckish Rogue …

                      28 September 2015 at 11:00 am

                      No Weka I didn’t, your opinion doesn’t change my intention
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      28 September 2015 at 11:05 am

                      Nah, Weka’s right, or you’d be discussing the reasons for the decline instead of lashing out at me.
                    • Puckish Rogue …

                      28 September 2015 at 11:07 am

                      Well Draco I’m wondering if theres a corellation between the amount of children going through CYFs (and being failed by the system) and the decline in amount of children being adopted

                      Is it because less people want to adopt, less children being put up for adoption, would more adoption help the problem or hinder it?

                      I don’t know and I’m curious
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      28 September 2015 at 11:15 am

                      So you’re incapable of Googling it. Despite the plethora of articles you could use to educate yourself, here you are whining that no-one will do your homework for you.

                      Mendacious bludger.
                    • tracey …

                      28 September 2015 at 11:25 am

                      Since the 1970’s you will find there has emerged new technology quite relevant to your knowledge gap.

                      It is in the field of fertility treatments. In the early days we called them “test tube babies”. This was because for parents who couldn’t conceive (and who previously turned to adoption), they could take sperm and an ovum (egg) and within a laboratory seek to get fertilisation active. They could then implant the result into the woman’s uterus.

                      The Technology expanded to the point where they could use other people’s sperm (if the man was infertile) or another ovum (if the woman were infertile), then there was surrogacy. It has all move don so far (and seemingly without your knowledge) that there are now ethical debates over the creation of “designer” babies and defect-free babies.
                    • Puckish Rogue …

                      28 September 2015 at 11:39 am

                      Thanks Tracey

                      On that I thought Gattaca was a good movie that raised some interesting questions.

                      I had just assumed that as the population increased there’d be parents who couldn’t afford to go the IVF treatment way

                      Is it something like two treatments for free (if accepted) then you pay for your own treatments or something

                      It seems likes theres a definite economic barrier to the IVF whereas adoption might be a more finacially viable option for some?
                    • tracey …

                      28 September 2015 at 11:44 am

                      Haven’t seen it, but just read the premise at Wikipedia…
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      28 September 2015 at 12:58 pm

                      😆 at PR getting his information and political position from a movie, like BM and Mad Max, reality is just too difficult to think about.
                    • McFlock …

                      28 September 2015 at 1:10 pm

                      gattaca is an excellent movie.

                      It is also completely irrelevant to the issue of tories wanting to sterilize the poor.
                    • Puckish Rogue …

                      28 September 2015 at 2:29 pm

                      No it doesn’t McFlock but I was mentioning it as tracey had brought up the whole designer baby thing
                    • McFlock …

                      28 September 2015 at 3:05 pm

                      lol

                      Yes, Tracey pointed out a major hole in your initial distraction attempt, and made an incidental comment about possible ramifications of that issue, so you took that opportunity to further distract us from the tory obsession with poor people’s reproductive organs.

                      I mean, seriously – tories bitch about the nanny state, but barely blink when nact wants to control the fertility of poor people.

                      And whenever a tory says they want to “encourage” a poor person to do something, their meaning is to “threaten the poor person with starvation and homelessness until they do that thing”.
      • The lost sheep 10.1.2

        28 September 2015 at 10:52 am

        I was concerned when you invoked the right wing ‘personal responsibility’ meme last week OAB.
        So glad to see you have come to your senses.
        All negative outcomes for individuals are still entirely the fault of Government. Whew.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.2.1

          28 September 2015 at 11:02 am

          Yawn. The reason you have to put words in my mouth is that you have no answer to what I actually said.

          Feeble.
          • Puckish Rogue 10.1.2.1.1

            28 September 2015 at 11:13 am

            The reason Lost Sheep put words into your mouth is because what you’re saying at the moment makes no sense
            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.2.1.1.1

              28 September 2015 at 11:17 am

              What’s nonsensical about suggesting that you do a Google search for “adoption statistics” and a little reading?
              • McFlock …

                28 September 2015 at 1:18 pm

                it involves a tory doing their own work, rather than exploiting the labour of others. Does not compute in tory brainpan.
                • marty mars …

                  28 September 2015 at 2:48 pm

                  lol so true
    • tracey 10.2

      28 September 2015 at 11:14 am

      I don’t but I know that prior to 1980 or even further into the late 80’s contraception was a VERY touchy topic in NZ. Patricia Bartlett was working hard to get Life of Brian made R18 and abortion was a difficult topic to raise with your parents and many doctors.
11. mpledger 11

    28 September 2015 at 9:29 am

    Many women have side effects from hormonal contraception. Is the govt going to force that on these women? What would their response be if one of these women dies?

    Are they going to force women who have a religious belief that contraception is wrong?
    Or will interact badly with other medication that a women is on?
    Or will interact badly with alcohol/drugs that the women is known to be addicted too?
    • weka 11.1

      28 September 2015 at 10:10 am

      they’re not talking about women, they’re talking about beneficiaries and other third class objects of derision. That’s why they can even have this conversation. If they were talking about women, there’d be outrage.

      (agreed on the clinical issues and don’t trust the various bodies involved to get that right enough).
      • tracey 11.1.1

        28 September 2015 at 11:16 am

        Perhaps someone needs to ask a direct question of the Minister, like

        “does this discussion include those men who have parented multiple children they are unable to support and are we going to enforce vasectomies on them? And how many children before we do that? Now THAT is ” “a conversation that New Zealanders, perhaps, need to have”.
        • RedBaronCV 11.1.1.1

          28 September 2015 at 7:42 pm

          And Thank you Tracey – why doesn’t the minister get asked that question?

          Why don’t we even discuss why males abandon children?
          • Lara 11.1.1.1.1

            29 September 2015 at 4:13 pm

            Because then we’d be “feminazis”.
12. Lanthanide 12

    28 September 2015 at 9:32 am

    John Key “thinks” (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that parents on the DPB are “breeding for a business”. That kind of sick and stupid attitude can never be allowed to control reproductive rights.

    Well that’s not really relevant to the discussion at hand, which is families that bring new babies into the world, only for them to not be taken care of, resulting in CYFs taking them from the families.

    In this case, there is no “breeding for a business” because the family is not keeping the child, so there can be no increase in benefit payments to that family.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1

      28 September 2015 at 9:39 am

      No, the real issue is that the National Party attacks the victims of its own incompetence and greed. In a system that creates poverty, acting all surprised when there are poor people is pretty low if you ask me.
      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1

        28 September 2015 at 10:55 am

        +1
    • weka 12.2

      28 September 2015 at 10:14 am

      “In this case, there is no “breeding for a business” because the family is not keeping the child, so there can be no increase in benefit payments to that family.”

      That would depend on how old the child is when it’s taken into care.

      ‘Breeding for business’ is a carefully crafted meme from the cruel right and it applies here as a dog whistle and distraction even if its not pedantically correct. There’s also a connection between the meme and the policy (which I believe is the point r0b is making). It doesn’t have to be rational.
      • Lanthanide 12.2.1

        28 September 2015 at 12:05 pm

        Ahhhh, right. The background meme of ‘breeding for a business’ will be playing in people’s minds with this new announcement, even though this particular announcement doesn’t have anything to do with it.
        • tracey 12.2.1.1

          28 September 2015 at 12:45 pm

          A bit like Seymour suggesting we can’t keep extending parental leave because then people will abuse the system… you know get a job… have a baby and receive paternity leave until they go back to work…. a GREAT rort.
          • Chris 12.2.1.1.1

            28 September 2015 at 7:43 pm

            Yeah, and everyone knows that life on a benefit is such a cruise. I can’t understand why everyone isn’t having kids as soon as they can. Heck, time’s money. Need to start popping them out now.
        • Puddleglum 12.2.1.2

          28 September 2015 at 4:18 pm

          I don’t think there’s a particularly long trail of inferences between the notion that some young people (women) are ‘breeding for a business’ and a policy of providing contraception for those who have their children taken off them because of a risk of abuse.

          One trail would roughly go like this:

          1. Some young people are encouraged to ‘breed for a business’ because of the DPB.
          2. ‘Breeding for a business’ is not a good motive for having children and does not suggest an attitude of care for the children (because they are seen as financial ‘assets’).
          3. Such parents (who ‘breed for a business) are therefore more likely to be abusive towards their children and have their children taken off them by CYFS than are other parents.
          4. Therefore, coercing such parents to take contraception not only prevents removal of further children but also discourages breeding for a business (i.e., because there is a large overlap between those who ‘breed for a business’ and likelihood of abusive parenting).

          Of course I don’t expect most people to lay out those inferences to themselves in any conscious way. Far more likely to go straight from 1 to 4 with 2 and 3 being implicit.

          In general, I’d imagine that very few people consciously lay out the logic of their positions and reflect on the likely validity.

          Most of us just ‘feel’ that what we think is right and, if pushed (and lucky/ practiced enough), might manage retrospectively to extract some kind of logic to support what we ‘feel’.
          • Lanthanide 12.2.1.2.1

            28 September 2015 at 4:36 pm

            Good points.

            I think I tend to use the ‘laying things out logically’ way of thinking more than the average person might (which leads to my pedantry). It’s far from exclusive of course, but I seem prone to it.
            • Puddleglum 12.2.1.2.1.1

              28 September 2015 at 5:09 pm

              So am I 😊

              It can be a curse at times – and a recipe for getting frustrated with arguments that don’t seem to have been produced in that way but may, nevertheless, have some incidental logic potentially supporting them.

              I always feel compelled to check for that possible logical grounding even if the person making the claim was unaware of it.
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                28 September 2015 at 8:50 pm

                Where individual bias coincides with reality, serendipity takes the credit.

                Hence the value of peer-review.
                • Puddleglum …

                  28 September 2015 at 9:38 pm

                  True enough.

                  Another one of the things that people often don’t realise about science – at least from Popper’s point of view – is that it’s entirely irrelevant to its scientific status where a hypothesis comes from (flights of the imagination, drug-induced delirium, overweening prejudice or careful application of logic).

                  What matters is that it can be put to the test, technically at least, and potentially be found wanting.

                  Having said that, hypotheses that come from flights of fancy (or wild prejudice) are probably more susceptible to being quickly falsified than are hypotheses that emerge from a bit of careful thinking inclusive of most of the known facts of the matter (i.e., that come from a good theory).

                  So any old speculation, so long as it’s at least technically testable, might be called scientific – but that doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily worth bothering going to the trouble of testing it (then again, you never know :-)).
                  • One Anonymous Bloke …

                    28 September 2015 at 10:20 pm

                    Any old speculation can be called scientific and that’s an excuse for the National Party.
                    • Lanthanide …

                      29 September 2015 at 11:13 am

                      You can always find another scientist that will say what you want.
    • marty mars 12.3

      28 September 2015 at 2:54 pm

      “which is families that bring new babies into the world, only for them to not be taken care of, resulting in CYFs taking them from the families.”

      … taking them from the families and in many cases making their lives an even worse living hell from that point on until they end up in the justice system where they are abused further at which point they get delegated to serco to help train them for pay per view fighting – which to be fair does generate a little profit for the private provider and provides endless pontificating pleasure for the handwringing politicians and their supportive lapdogs who put them into the meatgrinder in the first place.
    • Chris 12.4

      28 September 2015 at 5:24 pm

      But it’s the so-called “breeding” that nactoids want stopped so there’s no cost to the state of either taking kids into care or increased benefit payments. It also feeds into its vote-gathering machine that runs on the hatred of the poor, this probably being the far greater reason for all this than anything else.

      http://tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2011/06/hateful-cathy-odgers-as-act-candidate.html
    • RedBaronCV 12.5

      28 September 2015 at 7:43 pm

      Is John Key that rude about his mother?
13. stever 13

    28 September 2015 at 9:43 am

    Doing one of those substitution one phrase with another tests…would *this* alarm anyone?

    “State may try to stop some families having too much wealth

    Some families who have come to the attention of authorities may be stopped from having more wealth by the Government.
    …
    Tolley acknowledged it would be a “huge step” for the state to start telling people that they could not have any more wealth, but said it was “a conversation that New Zealanders, perhaps, need to have”.
    …
    Tolley did not rule out limiting or preventing some families from having any more wealth, but said she would wait to see what the panel recommended in December. …
    • Karen 13.1

      28 September 2015 at 10:27 am

      +1
      Great idea.
    • Draco T Bastard 13.2

      28 September 2015 at 10:58 am

      Thing is. We actually do need to limit peoples wealth. The problems we have are the rich.
14. David Scott 14

    28 September 2015 at 9:54 am

    Taking the war on the poor to a whole new level with Eugenics. Even the suggestion of this should be reason enough to remove this government.
15. Brutus Iscariot 15

    28 September 2015 at 11:20 am

    Pretty simplistic to say that the Government should just fix poverty rather than discouraging procreation, when one of the actual causes of poverty is having too many children.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1

      28 September 2015 at 11:23 am

      🙄

      Your intellectual and ethical poverty, on the other hand…what causes that?
    • Lanthanide 15.2

      28 September 2015 at 12:07 pm

      The government should be concerned about the number of babies being born to these families. But such concern should be a minor part of a much more comprehensive and thorough effort to help these families, instead of the main attraction as we’re seeing here.
    • tracey 15.3

      28 September 2015 at 12:36 pm

      IF Governments were interested in procreation rates they would willingly and actively make sure that programmes (which are readily available and effective) are implemented across ALL our schools. Yet they don’t. So they are neither interested in genuinely doing very much at all.

      The people supporting and advocating this contraception notion and medical implanting of IUD’s are strongly advocating vasectomies for the fathers of all these children?
      • KJT 15.3.1

        28 September 2015 at 12:54 pm

        The most effective, proven, way of lowering birth rates is to give women more power, income, and reproductive choices.

        In other words, if right wingers were really concerned about women, or their children, they would be raising benefits, getting rid of zero hours Mc-Jobs, ensuring equal access to education, and more pay for the essential, but underpaid jobs, which are mostly done by women..
        • Draco T Bastard 15.3.1.1

          28 September 2015 at 3:14 pm

          +1

          All that our present government seems interested in is controlling other peoples lives, punishing people for being poor.
16. venezia 16

    28 September 2015 at 11:57 am

    I agree with Redbaroncv above…. The journalists need to do the research to answer the question “how many women have seven children during the time they are on the DPB?”
    Then we can have a public debate.
    • tracey 16.1

      28 September 2015 at 12:33 pm

      this ^^^^^^^

      Afterall when we hear of appalling behaviour by a company director, we don’t tarnish ALL company directors with the same brush and force draconian measures on them (yeah DTB I kow we should… 😉 )
17. NZSage 17

    28 September 2015 at 12:53 pm

    Odd how the right wing seem to so often demonise and decry state intervention yet what could be more intrusive than controlling a persons biological choices?

    Once again the Natzs and some of their supporters show what a hateful, selfish and bigoted bunch they really are.
18. Paul 18

    28 September 2015 at 1:59 pm

    The National Party have set up a predictable diversion to knock the TPP off the headlines just as Groser is being taken to court to release the text.
19. A.Ziffel 19

    28 September 2015 at 2:02 pm

    This article could have been titled “The MSM & reproductive rights” since it was Michael Parkin that brought the subject up in the interview, not Tolley. Her response was very guarded.
    • Ergo Robertina 19.1

      28 September 2015 at 7:43 pm

      Yeah, Parkin was aggressive in how he pushed this line in the interview. But it made Tolley seem oh so reasonable by slightly pushing back on it, and it helps the Govt by giving the contraceptive issue another run round the paddock, helping frame the wider CYF story as one of fecklessness.
      Works a treat as everyone has an opinion – most issues are increasingly too complex or boring for people, especially the press gallery, to understand.
20. marty mars 20

    28 September 2015 at 2:56 pm

    these proposals are colonisation in action and a continuation of the attacks upon tangata whenua – look at the numbers and tell me it ain’t so.
    • joe90 20.1

      28 September 2015 at 3:19 pm

      A BBC doco, in seven parts, about the pseudo science used to justify racial violence across the globe.

      http://usslave.blogspot.co.nz/2011/04/fatal-impact-eugenics-social-darwinism.html

      (btw, splitting firewood helped me)
      • marty mars 20.1.1

        28 September 2015 at 5:31 pm

        I’ve been digging a hole – better go fill it in I spose…
21. linda 21

    28 September 2015 at 2:58 pm

    Nugenics can’t. Be far away the nazi s did the in the 1930s only the udermen of. The right can reproduce all others are surplus to the balance sheet how long before we get extermination camps run by serco modern version of the death. Heads. We will soon have a nazi flag
    • Puckish Rogue 21.1

      28 September 2015 at 3:39 pm

      Thanks for that
22. Puckish Rogue 22

    28 September 2015 at 3:40 pm

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/concerns-over-cyfs-contraceptive-tough-line/

    Surprisingly (and grudgingly I admit) Littles sounding reasonable

    Meanwhile, the Government’s getting an unusual defender on the issue, in the form of the Labour Party.

    Labour leader Andrew Little said more access to contraception is a good thing, and he doesn’t see the rest of the minister’s remarks as meaning the Government plans to take the scheme any further.

    “My own personal assessment of Anne Tolley is that she would be uncomfortable with that level of intervention.”
23. Sabine 23

    28 September 2015 at 5:02 pm

    I think it needs to be understood that the Domestic Purpose Benefit does not exist anymore. It has been made redunant under the current National led Government, with Mrs. Pullyer Bennefit being responsible for the Ministry of Social Regression.

    http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/benefit-changes/dpb-sole-parents.html

    Changes to Domestic Purposes Benefit – Sole Parent
    If you are on the Domestic Purposes Benefit – Sole Parent, you need to know about changes being made to your benefit from 15 October 2012.

    Work obligations – ‘Being Available for Work’
    There are changes to when you are expected to actively seek suitable part-time or full-time work.
    People whose youngest child is aged between five and 13 years are now expected to look for part-time work of at least 15 hours a week, and accept any suitable job.

    People whose youngest child is 14 or older, or have no children, are expected to look for full-time work of at least 30 hours a week, and accept any suitable job.

    You will need to be available and looking for work, and accept any offers of suitable employment. You may also need to prepare a CV, attend a programme to improve your skills, or do other job related training.

    You need to be able to show us that you are actively seeking work or your benefit may be affected.

    Work preparation obligations – ‘Getting Ready for Work’

    If your youngest child is aged under five you will need to take practical steps to get ready for work.
    What you are asked to do will depend on what will best help you get a job. It might be preparing a CV, attending a programme to improve your skills, or doing other job related training.
    You need to be able to show us that you are making an effort to get ready for work or your benefit may be affected.

    Looking for work

    You may be eligible for assistance with the cost of childcare while you are working, attending training or some other activity that will help you move into work.
    The Childcare Subsidy is for preschool children and the OSCAR (Out of School Care and Recreation) Subsidy is for before and after school care and holiday programmes for children aged five – 13 years.
    For more information read Help with Childcare Costs

    Having another child while on a benefit
    From 15 October 2012 if you are on a benefit and have another child, once that child turns one you may have a change in obligations. These changes are consistent with the one year of parental leave that people in work receive.
    What this means
    Once your new child turn
    s one you may have new obligations depending on the age of your next youngest child. If your next youngest child is:
    under five, you will be expected to continue to take practical steps to get ready for work
    five – 13, you will be expected to be available for part-time work of at least 15 hours a week, and accept any suitable job
    14 or older, you will be expected to be available for full-time work of at least 30 hours a week, and accept any suitable job.
    For more information read:

    http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/documents/dpb-sole-parent-oct-factsheet.pdf
    • RedBaronCV 23.1

      28 September 2015 at 7:49 pm

      Where’s the matching policy,
      “If you are a non caregiving parent of a child over three when that child turns three you are required to care for them half time to facilitate the return of the primary caregiver to work or face a financial penalty that will lower your take home wage to the equivalent of the unemployment benefit plus 10%”
24. Draco T Bastard 24

    28 September 2015 at 5:23 pm

    Dimpost names it accurately: Clickbait government

    This government would never actually carry out the daunting legal and policy work required to implement mandatory contraception for beneficiaries, but they sure do like floating the idea whenever there’s a dip in the polls, to outraged cries from liberal pundits and roars of approval from the talkback radio moronocracy.

    Thing is, I’m pretty sure that National would do all the legislation and will do as soon as they think that no one’s watching.
    • sabine 24.1

      28 September 2015 at 7:08 pm

      +1
25. Mike Steinberg 25

    28 September 2015 at 7:55 pm

    Coercion is one thing, but family planning and contraception has long been seen as a way to help women out of poverty.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 25.1

      28 September 2015 at 7:58 pm

      If the National Party was all about empowering women we likely wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Links to post

1. ‘Sick and stupid attitude ‘ | Your NZ: posted on 28 September 2015 at 7:25 am
2. Why did Tolley talk about contraception? | Your NZ: posted on 28 September 2015 at 9:18 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS