Welfare Working Group promotes eugenics

Written By: - Date published: 10:55 am, February 23rd, 2011 - 183 comments
Categories: families, human rights, welfare - Tags: ,

The Welfare Working Group wants to get poor women to breed less by offering them free long-term contraception. Jeez, I know this is all an exercise in proposing extreme options along with less extreme ones to make the less extreme ones appear moderate when the government adopts them but eugenics? Seriously?

Offering free contraception to all, I would support. But targeting one ‘undesirable’ strata of society because, by virtue of taking a benefit, they are a ‘drain’ on society? That’s one step back from forced sterilisations. Has the right reverted 80 years?

183 comments on “Welfare Working Group promotes eugenics ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. M 1
    23 February 2011 at 11:18 am

    I read the report last night and it’s just the same old, same old – no real solutions or looking at the causes of our current predicament – it will be used as a blunt instrument with which to bash the poor/disadvantaged.

    Anti-spam: slow, yeah NACT is slow to learn.

  2. ghostwhowalksnz 2
    23 February 2011 at 11:24 am

    The one that got me was the proposal for ‘welfare’ to be allocated a fixed amount in the budget ( and presumably a falling future value) and then beneficiaries to take the brunt of any shortfall

    • ZeeBop 2.1
      23 February 2011 at 12:48 pm

      Women should be calling the Human Rights Commission about the welfare report if it made such a hideous policy recommendation. Its illegal to discriminate against a group and what could be more personal than the right to have offspring and targeting the poor who are already marginalized to give up that right.

      Its so much like what has happened globally those in power will not take responsibility and discuss risks, they will limit budgets after routinely ignoring the cost risks, and then surprise surprise we all get a hideously large bill in a few years time. If only they have bothered to put enough money up to start with. One wonders what we have Ombudsman for if they can’t act to force govt ministries to do their job. What could be more important than risk analysis and budgeting for black swans, its actually the opposite of, to limit budgets and fail to address the real crisis in NZ.

      That the elites who control govt are doing everything to depopulate NZ of the young people here. Child poverty forced poor families to move to Australia. Youth suicide is a direct result of government discrimination of the young and criminalization of poor young people.

      But what got me in the report was how it did not discuss the effect that exporting young healthy people overseas has on sickness numbers.

  3. kriswgtn 3
    23 February 2011 at 11:25 am

    What I dont get is its always blame the women

    what about men stepping up to the plate and being responsible as well

    • pollywog 3.1
      23 February 2011 at 12:15 pm

      eh !!!…too many no hoping bastard fatherless kids getting round

      I’m surprised they haven’t outlawed having babies outside of marriage. Cancel the DPB so in future all mothers to be are required to be married first.

      shotgun weddings all round….yeeehaw

  4. Zorr 4
    23 February 2011 at 11:29 am

    The fact that JonKey is intending on making the work test on DPB mums applicable when the youngest is age 3yo based on the free ECE hours is just sickening for multiple reasons.

    1) @ 3yo they are still very young children and shouldn’t be expected to be in ECE – 6yo is a good age as they are settled in primary school hopefully by then
    2) ECE cuts – congratulations dumbass, you are making it very tough on working mothers

  5. Colonial Viper 5
    23 February 2011 at 11:36 am

    Things started to go down hill in society when they let people who weren’t land-owning men vote.

    National are simply trying to remedy the situation.

    • billy fish 5.1
      23 February 2011 at 12:27 pm

      Wrong CV, things started going downhill with the bloody Normans and frankly the English Civil Wars just took the bloody biscuit.
      It’s political correctness gone mad

    • Jum 5.2
      23 February 2011 at 4:53 pm

      Wrong Colonial Viper,

      Things started going downhill when something went wrong with the gene x, one of the legs fell off and turned into a y and baby boys were born! (with an extra leg).

      Just kidding, CV; you’re okay.

    • Colonial Viper 5.3
      23 February 2011 at 6:12 pm

      lolz you guys 🙂

  6. JJ 6
    23 February 2011 at 11:39 am

    Labelling this as eugenics is a bit hysterical Marty G, the logic behind such a move has nothing to do with genitcs. It is first of all empowering, it enables the women in question to have access to forms of contraception that they may not otherwise have been offered or have been able to afford – no one is advocating forced contraception or any other form of compulsion.

    Having children is very difficult if the time is not right, particularly from a financial perspective – it can also interfere with education plans, career advancement and job seeking.

    It is unneccessary to offer such services to the whole population, as most have the resources to handle these things by themselves. Targeting the poor by providing free contraception is not eugenics, it is quite simply, enabling people to do what they choose.

    • Marty G 6.1
      23 February 2011 at 11:53 am

      It’s very much rooted in the belief that certain groups are more of a burden than others. The report waxes lyrical about Maori welfare dependency.

      “the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits”

      wouldn’t you say that discouraging people from breeding because of inter-generational welfare dependency is targeting an “inheritable undesirable trait”. Eugenics isn’t simply limited to genetics, it is about ‘traits’, like homosexuality and ‘laziness’.

      I’m all for women having the ability to choose but don’t pretend for a second that this is why the contraception would only be for people on welfare. Why not for all people on low incomes including students and workers? Why not for everyone? Because people on welfare are seen as having ‘undesirable traits’

      • JJ 6.1.1
        23 February 2011 at 1:13 pm

        “wouldn’t you say that discouraging people from breeding because of inter-generational welfare dependency is targeting an “inheritable undesirable trait”. Eugenics isn’t simply limited to genetics, it is about ‘traits’, like homosexuality and ‘laziness’.”

        No, I would say enabling those on welfare to delay their fertility until such a time as they choose to reproduce is not about eugenics. I think it is sensible to enable women to delay reproduction, or to allow them to choose to have no more children. Its commonsense that if women have children when they are too young, or have many children, their children may be disadvantaged.

        “Why not for all people on low incomes including students and workers? Why not for everyone? Because people on welfare are seen as having ‘undesirable traits’”

        Because women on welfare need the help more than students and event hose on low incomes.

        • bbfloyd 6.1.1.1
          23 February 2011 at 1:35 pm

          anaffordable contraception? can you give me an example of this? otherwise,jj(and your little echo chris 73), we can safely assume you number among the ignorant, bigoted group of people who are the real stumbling blocks to finding lasting, sensible solutions to nz’s current woes.

          • Chris73 6.1.1.1.1
            23 February 2011 at 2:13 pm

            Agree with you = good, disagree with you = bad…

            • Akldnut 6.1.1.1.1.1
              23 February 2011 at 3:58 pm

              I’ve got a job woohoo, I can go out and make lots of little Akldnuts.
              No job! No kids for you pal!
              There there… it won’t be forever, just until you get a job (or unless I can convince you it needs to be longer) can’t have too many underclass running around.

              This is nothing more than social engineering of the almost worst kind – done for the sake of money

              • Deadly_NZ …
                23 February 2011 at 9:22 pm

                Congratulations .. And in a free, desperate for a job market, how secure would you feel if you knew that 20 people were bidding to do your job for a lower rate than you are being paid? Sci Fi or Sci Fact? Desperation is a queer bitch

          • JJ 6.1.1.1.2
            23 February 2011 at 4:06 pm

            Bbfloyd I do not understand yoru first sentence fragment. This policy suggestion is to provide free contraception.

            bbflyod:
            1. disagrees with you
            2. says something nonsensical
            3. personally attacks you
            4. blames you for people being poor
            5. ???

            For the record, I’m not particularly in favour of this policy. However I do think that Marty G’s “eugenics” belief is not corellated with the motivations of the proposing groups motives or logic.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.2.1
              23 February 2011 at 5:22 pm

              Further arguments in support of this policy being a case of eugenics.

              Saunders: [As though it’s obvious] Because of the ability distribution! There is an ability distribution across the social classes.

              Saunders: No, no, many people in the lower positions in society produce children who are bright, and those children rise, but on average you will find the ability level of the children being born into middle class homes is higher and that is what’s driving the difference in mobility outcomes.

              Saunders was one of the people advising the WWG.

              Is this policy advice about putting eugenics into government policies? Damn right it is.

              • JJ …
                23 February 2011 at 5:26 pm

                And perhaps having fewer children later in life will help people in the lower classes to produce high ability socially mobile children, as they will be able to devote more resources to each child.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  23 February 2011 at 5:43 pm

                  Now you’re really stretching, trying to deny the simple reality that the WWG is promoting eugenics as government policy.

                • Vicky32 …
                  23 February 2011 at 7:13 pm

                  You pillock, jj!
                  I had two children early in life, and in marriage. One is pretty much lower class, the other pretty much middle.
                  My 3rd child was born when I was 33, and raised entirely on the DPB. (I had sunk to the lower classes, obviously.)
                  But the child raised on the DPB has risen far higher than his brothers. One child, birn late in life – but raised on a benefit, is the only one heading past middle to upper-class-ness.
                  How do your prejudices explain that?
                  Deb

                  • JJ …
                    24 February 2011 at 12:43 am

                    You are to be commended for your efforts. I have never stated a belief that children born to parentst on the benefit are inferior, just that children may be advantaged if their parents raise them at an easier time.

                    I think raising children whilst relying on a benefit would be very very hard. Money would be very tight. Benefits are never going to be able to match the purchasing power of an earned income, and women with children would probably find it harder to establish a career than women without children.

                    And please, let us not lose sight of what we are arguing over here. We are arguing over giving free stuff to people on welfare.

                • Marty G …
                  23 February 2011 at 7:15 pm

                  The ‘ lower classes’ – excuse me? Maybe you’ve reverted more than 80 years. You sound like a Victorian snob.

                  • rosy …
                    23 February 2011 at 9:50 pm

                    I had my 3 children before I was 21. They can all read and are not in prison – that’s moving up in the world isn’t it JJ?

                    Actually I hate it when I’m doing the social chitchat ‘… and how old are your children’ and I see the look of horror on the face of the questioner (if they’re really snobby I give the above reply). I feel for my children knowing there are such bigots around. They are all doing well in their ‘high ability, socially mobile’ careers except the one in Christchurch is this week looking for another job. His disappeared with the building it was in. Maybe if he ends up in the unemployment queue the likes of JJ will blame it on being born to a teenager.

                  • JJ …
                    24 February 2011 at 12:44 am

                    I’m sorry I wasn’t aware that such vocabulary was so out of date and offensive.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  23 February 2011 at 9:55 pm

                  Is there a difference between using the term ‘lower class’ and ‘under class’ now?

                  I’ve taken to using class terminology a bit more because class awareness is part of how this fight is going to be won.

      • todd 6.1.2
        23 February 2011 at 1:32 pm

        I have a lot of difficulty with the concept that poor people should not be able to have children because they’re poor. It is not a decision about when you want to have children; it is a decision about having kids at all. In my opinion it is a basic human right to meet somebody you like and then procreate in the best circumstances available to you. The consideration of money within this natural cycle is damaging on many levels:

        1. It stigmatises the parents and children
        2. Reduces the effectiveness of education
        3. Creates further inherited disparity
        4. Entrenches negative cycles within society
        5. Does not enrich the gene pool

        The fact that money is not a sign of strength, intelligence, morals or anything else that used to lead to procreation is apparent. In fact it appears to be the complete opposite… The liars, lazy, ugly, cunning and morally defunct in the most part have the finances and thus ability to procreate.

        The myth that undesirable traits lead to impoverishment is exactly that. It’s all about the parent’s circumstances that lead into the child’s circumstances and so on. Once you are in the poverty cycle, intelligence, strength and morals have little to do with you working yourself out of those circumstances. It appears that the Government plans to make it even more difficult for the poor to succeed, thus it is perceived that this is encouraged eugenics through financial manipulation.

        Such recommendations do not rectify the inherent social divide that is the real problem. It does make it easier for those who cannot succeed financially to also not procreate. Although I am sure there is a good argument concerning free contraception, the implied negative social dynamic is enough for this recommendation to be ignored. In fact I recommend that the whole report be thrown in the bin.

        The elitists amongst the wealthy perceived superiority is in actuality all in their minds. The money that they have allows them to buy that perception at the impoverished peoples expense.

        In practicality it is completely ineffective at providing a eugenics ethos to the population. It is the perceived ideals of a bigoted right wing that is in question and one must look at such a plan as being devised with eugenics in mind. Therefore the use of finances to impede the poor from having children and then providing free contraception is not true eugenics through social engineering… It is bigoted eugenics through incorrect perception, which in my opinion is the worst kind of fascism there is.

        In part such policy ideas are due to racism, which then can in fact be attributed to the ethos of the elite in trying to determine who procreates. However there is no perceivable distinction between the rich and poor apart from what their circumstances cause and allow. Eugenics is a defunct ideal as applied to financial status, as there is no relevance to the argument that rich people are better people because they have wealth.

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.1
          23 February 2011 at 1:53 pm

          Shows two disconnects in the Right Wing mindset

          1) An inability or unwillingness to lift people up out of poverty and off the benefit. Easier to get rid of these people or hope their families die out rather than give them a hand up.

          2) An inability or unwillingness to understand that the growth of their capital is predicated upon productive work done by the labour force. Get rid of the labour force and?

          You can see that in developed countries with large numbers of wealthy eg. Singapore, Hong Kong, the entire middle and upper strata of society runs on cheap imported labour and would fall apart without it.

          • todd 6.1.2.1.1
            23 February 2011 at 2:12 pm

            Exactly! The Natz are going to shoot themselves and their rich business mates in the foot for a short-term gain, which is going to cause untold misery if applied. The political dynamic has a lot to blame for such developments. There is no long term plan and it’s the future income of the already wealthy that will eventually suffer, not just the already impoverished in the present time. They seem too stupid to understand this and I’m at a loss for words.

            I would just like to say though that history has shown us its only a small step to actual enforced sterilizations and terminations from such policy recommendations. They certainly are displaying enough hatred towards the poor for this to be a considered outcome to going down the Redstock path of attrition. Although I’m sure (as many have surmised), any applied recommendations will be undertaken in a less extreme format so that the Natz can at least appear to be sane.

            • JJ 6.1.2.1.1.1
              23 February 2011 at 4:14 pm

              There is no reason I see to predict a massive shortfall in the fertility rate if this policy is implemented. Unless I am understanding it incorrectly. Providing free contraceptive is about as far from forced sterilisation as gay marriage is far from people marrying their pets.

              • mcflock …
                23 February 2011 at 6:04 pm

                If there’s no reason to expect a fall in the fertility rate, doesn’t that mean it’s smoke and mirrors pointless bullying bullshit?

                The stick bit was to demand “work-testing” when the youngest was 14wks, with a view to considering “further financial disincentives” if a small minority still get pregnant on the dpb.

                I.e. get the pill/injection or they might cut your benefit. Again, fairly narrow focus on the rich rewards of being a solo parent (/sarc) that are the focus of so many at kb. No thought about the real world, though.

                But the point is they will be using “negative stimulus”, sorry “financial disincentives” against people on the subsistence line. That’s force.

          • JJ 6.1.2.1.2
            23 February 2011 at 4:12 pm

            As for your first point, I think it is quite magical thinking to think that poor people are going to die out if you give them free contraceptive. I mean, it just does not follow. This is a bit of a straw man argument.

            Your second point has no point. I see no bussiness saying they could be productive without labour?

            • QoT 6.1.2.1.2.1
              23 February 2011 at 10:18 pm

              You do realise “magical thinking” sums up every report of every working group the NACT government have commissioned, right?

          • rosy 6.1.2.1.3
            23 February 2011 at 9:57 pm

            Really well said Todd and CV. I’ve no problem at all with free contraception. It aids people’s choices, but to make it explicity for those on welfare changes the tone to one of bigotry and discrimination.

        • Chris73 6.1.2.2
          23 February 2011 at 2:52 pm

          Nice cut and paste but its not eugenics its called family planning

          I’ll break it down for you nice and simple like

          Being able to afford to have kids and not rely on state and welfare = good
          Not being able to afford to raise kids and expect to rely on state and welfare = bad

          (Main reason we don’t have kids is because we can’t afford them)

          • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.2.1
            23 February 2011 at 4:15 pm

            If those on the benefit want to stay on the benefit, contraception should be made compulsory for them. What do you think Chris? WINZ staff could demand evidence of the use of contraception, for instance.

            And if those beneficiaries do have another child, their benefits will be cut off immediately.

            Of course, we cannot have innocent young New Zealand toddlers growing up in the resulting poverty not of their own making, so those children will naturally be removed from their parents into CYFS care and then adopted out into deserving families.

            What do you think Chris? Good idea eh?

            • Mutante 6.1.2.2.1.1
              23 February 2011 at 6:07 pm

              If I were unfortunate enough to be on a benefit under this current bunch of sociopaths, I for one would be more than happy to slap Basher Bennett around the chops with a used johnny.

            • JJ 6.1.2.2.1.2
              24 February 2011 at 7:12 pm

              Oh for goodness sake this policy offers free contraception (remember free condoms and the pill too can be obtained from family planning centres for just a $3 dispensing fee).

              I would, of course like 99% of New Zealanders, be against compulsory contraception.

          • Deadly_NZ 6.1.2.2.2
            23 February 2011 at 9:36 pm

            Maybe go the chinese way??? 1 child only and the second well No permission, i’ll leave it to your imagination. Oh joy now they want to do that to Kiwi’s great whats next ?? Heil Key? Compulsory sterilisation if you don’t earn over 250k a year ?? Oh yeah a NACT Fucking paradise….. Eugenics Yeah right.

          • McFlock 6.1.2.2.3
            24 February 2011 at 12:10 am

            “its not eugenics its called family planning”

            Surely eugenics is when someone else plans your family and then forces you, directly or indirectly, to follow their plan?

        • JJ 6.1.2.3
          23 February 2011 at 4:08 pm

          todd

          First of all I’d just like to say I’m not particularly in favour of this policy. Your post however is way off the mark, this policy isn’t advocating sterilisation – it is advocating contraception. Contraceptive use can be terminated should a good opportunity and desire to have kids coinicide for a person at a particular time.

          • Armchair Critic 6.1.2.3.1
            23 February 2011 at 11:32 pm

            Contraceptive use can be terminated should a good opportunity and desire to have kids coinicide for a person at a particular time.
            How can anyone know that “now” is a good time to have a child? Who amongst us knows what will happen over the next 18 or so years? No one that I know can see far enough ahead to know whether any particular time is the best time for them to have kids.
            If you have some great way of working it out I’m all ears, JJ. How should I decide if right now is the right time for me to have a child, according to you?

      • sharing is caring 6.1.3
        24 February 2011 at 7:17 pm

        MARTY do you actually do any research? http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/un-doctored/2010/july-2010/26/family-planning-welcomes-contraceptive-funding.aspx

        It is availabe free to women. The working group recommendation is one of ready access… ie better, sooner, more convenient healthcare

    • Chris73 6.2
      23 February 2011 at 1:16 pm

      I agree

    • B 6.3
      23 February 2011 at 1:45 pm

      I agree JJ. I think making contraception free for beneficiaries is a great idea as it ensures choice for women as you say. But…the reasons behind the recommendation and the message that is being sent is disgusting – it should not be part of “welfare reform”.

    • lefty 6.4
      23 February 2011 at 8:37 pm

      The first time the report mentioned long term contraception for women on benefits I thought it was just the usual ruling class fascination with the sex life of the lower orders.

      However the report keeps returning to this theme in one way or another, combining it with its call for woman who get pregnant while on a benefit to get a job after 14 weeks and raising the issue of contraception several more times.

      I left readers of the report in no doubt that they don’t want people who are not like them having children, but retain just enough connection with reality to realise it would not look good to openly call for a ban on beneficiaries breeding.

      Eugenics fits nicely with another of their recurring themes, ‘Work will set you free’.

      The report also wants to provide opportunities for private profit to be made from the misery of those struggling to get by.

      There is more as well – its worth a read if you have the stomach for it.

      By the time I had finished reading the executive summary I was feeling ill at the thought that fellow New Zealanders could produce such a vile document.

      Since then I have been in dispair at the msm’s inability to read and understand it.

      • RobertM 6.4.1
        24 February 2011 at 6:35 pm

        Yep right. Rebstock is stupid but probably not a kiwi. Yank I think. The moment she reached a settlement and $20 million fine on fay richwhite for the supposed contestable crime of inside trading over Tranz Rails shares- they were immediately in the clear and sold English Welsh and Scottish freight rail for 70 million pounds. I agree with parts of Rebstocks reports- many of those who were disabled by psych conditions and old drugs in the past could work with a less negative destructive defeatist attitude from psychiatrists. But the general viciousness of Rebstocks report shows she’s an idiot with no thought of consequences and 2nd effects.

    • David Kowhai 6.5
      1 March 2011 at 9:42 am

      I have to say yours is the sanest comment I have heard yet. I couldn’t agree more, there is no force being applied here and it is common sense to target the market that is in need. Something has to be done about the rising DPB costs and having more children whilst on it does not make good sense. Furthermore we need to get real about the world population numbers and it all starts at ground level. To target this market for free contraception makes good sense all round. TIME FOR SOME SERIOUS REALITY CHECKS.

      • Jum 6.5.1
        1 March 2011 at 3:24 pm

        Yes David Kowhai,

        I hope I understood you right in that you were keen on targeting men to keep their pants zipped – you were weren’t you?

  7. the sprout 7
    23 February 2011 at 12:15 pm

    yep, they really exposed just how extremist Rebstock is with that one

    Labelling this as eugenics is a bit hysterical

    not at all – eugenics is exactly what it is. and if there’s any hysteria, it’s coming from those who have made these suggestions in the first place:

    sterilise the poor! they’re robbing us! sterilised them before they breed again!

    now that’s hysteria bro. not to mention disgusting

  8. Danyl Mclauchlan 8
    23 February 2011 at 12:22 pm

    I was surprised by how totalitarian it is. You get six months to find work and if you fail you’ll be forced onto a government scheme, or have your benefit cut. And if you’re a Mum on the DPB with a three month old baby you’ll be forced onto the scheme while your child is placed into a state care facility.

    These aren’t new ideas – this was standard practise in the communist states of the Soviet empire. What’s new is that these ideas are contrary to the basic values of liberal democracy, so it’s highly unusual to see academics in a government study recommending them.

  9. joe90 9
    23 February 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Eugenics…check out what they’re proposing to do in Georgia because the nacts ‘working group’ proposals fit nicely with the RWNJ world wide war on woman and the poor. Uterus Police, indeed.

  10. spam 10
    23 February 2011 at 12:35 pm

    For goodness sake. I’m sure if they had advocated for free contraception for all, you’d be shrilly complaining that “the rich” were getting some sort of hand-out and that it should be targetted at those genuinely in-need. Same if “the rich” were being given free vasectomies and “the poor” weren’t.

    • Marty G 10.1
      23 February 2011 at 12:55 pm

      I specifically say I support free contraception for all. I don’t support efforts to stop one group breeding because the elite regards them as a drain. It’s not as if this is a income-based or universal subsidy, it’s directed only at beneficiaries

      • the sprout 10.1.1
        23 February 2011 at 1:42 pm

        exactly

      • JJ 10.1.2
        23 February 2011 at 4:15 pm

        So providng free contraceptive to all wont cause the NZ population to dissappear, but providing free contraceptives to those on welfare will ensure they do not leave any offspring in the next generation? You cannot have it both ways.

    • bbfloyd 10.2
      23 February 2011 at 1:43 pm

      spam….you really need to think harder before you commit party political drivel to print.

  11. SHG 11
    23 February 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Teenage girls are more likely to give birth to healthy babies than 40-something women. Since eugenics is about improving the health of the species, it’s older wealthier women who should receive incentives not to breed.

    Or maybe this isn’t actually about eugenics…? SURE IS AN ATTENTION-GRABBING WORD THOUGH!

    • mcflock 11.1
      23 February 2011 at 1:16 pm

      Maternal age is only one factor affecting infant health, and not the most significant one, especially when you’ve controlled for ethnicity and risk-taking behaviours. Chromosomal abnormality is an issue in the late 30s-40s, but we’re still talking in rates per 100k, not percentages.

      The main factor addressed by the contraception proposal is poverty (which is also more significant for key infant health determinants than simple age). So the proposal is actually pretty close to Francis Galton’s original theories.

      • todd 11.1.1
        23 February 2011 at 1:43 pm

        Especially when you’ve controlled for ethnicity and risk-taking behaviours.

        Care to explain further what you mean by that?

        • mcflock 11.1.1.1
          23 February 2011 at 2:27 pm

          Wikipedia things like attributable risk and statistical standardisation.

          Basically, I think SHG was referring to things like Down Syndrome, which does increase in incidence with maternal age (but again, low overall rates, not russian roulette levels). However then you need to look at birthweight, maternal smoking, and whether the maternal age is related to anti-social or risk-taking behaviour (e.g. diet, or smoking/alcohol/substance use). Some cultures practise a norm of mid-20s marriage and reproduction, so 17yo mothers have a higher incidence of higher-risk behaviours. Other cultures have a social norm of earlier reproduction and wider family support, so the 17yo mother might not be as likely to smoke during pregnancy as a mother in the first cultural group. Additionally, if the pregnancy is the result of planning rather than risk taking, the mother might well have increased her intake of folic acid or done other beneficial lifestyle changes.

          Meh. The elephant in social health analysis is usually economics, with a big confounding tie-in for crude ethnic identification measures.

    • Colonial Viper 11.2
      23 February 2011 at 1:22 pm

      Or maybe this isn’t actually about eugenics…? SURE IS AN ATTENTION-GRABBING WORD THOUGH!

      What I do know is that this is a group of rich powerful professional class people telling poor people not to have children, in addition to all the other things that poor people are not allowed to have.

    • Marty G 11.3
      23 February 2011 at 1:37 pm

      It’s not the free contraception for teens I’m objecting to

      • Deadly_NZ 11.3.1
        23 February 2011 at 9:52 pm

        @martyG

        What about the compulsory sterilisation for the poor then??? Or the fact that free speech is ignored? or that maybe there should be a committee to determine if we are worthy or procreating?

        Or will it be Purity? Too tall , too short, too blonde, too old, too grey NO GOOD NOT PURE etc etc You see where this starts to head?? It’s not eugenics, it’s just them trying to keep us down. Fuck em.

        • McFlock 11.3.1.1
          24 February 2011 at 12:13 am

          Personally, I agree with free contraception – in fact I support free healthcare for all, including dentistry.

          I disagree fundamentally with pinning a contraception plan to welfare policy, or even specific benefit entitlements.

    • bbfloyd 11.4
      23 February 2011 at 1:46 pm

      well done shg…. must have taken some real brainstorming to come up with that particular conspiricy theory… with an intellect like that, you would make an excellent bicycle repairman. there will be untold jobs in your line opening up any decade now when the john key memorial cycleway opens up.

  12. Carol 12
    23 February 2011 at 1:18 pm

    The whole welfare report exercise is one of distraction. The last Labour government tightened up on welfare a lot. Tightening up further is not going to improve the country’s economy. The problem lies elsewhere with the lack of jobs, and National’s lack of plans to generate a real and productive economy.

    Anyway, birthrates of populations decline when people have a rise in income, not vice versa. When people believe they will be able to earn more, they do, and have smaller families, so they can concentrate more resources on fewer children. Women with more formal education, are more likely to have only a couple of children. So encouraging birth control of less well-off women is putting the cart before the horse. All that such welfare reports and policies do is divert attention and blame to beneficiaries. It’s just a distraction from the government’s lack of a realistic policy for improving prodcutive business and increasing employment possibilities.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      23 February 2011 at 1:25 pm

      Has everyone forgotten the reports in the last week of how NZ is suffering a youth/young adult population gap? We can ignore it for now, but in 15 years the ratio of over 60 year olds will be through the roof.

    • marsman 12.2
      23 February 2011 at 1:42 pm

      Carol, what you say makes total sense. Rebstock and her committee are a total waste of tax-payer’s money. An expensive distraction.

  13. randal 13
    23 February 2011 at 1:31 pm

    national is supposed to be the party of business.
    well where is the new business.
    and the jobs.
    or are they just cro-magnon bullshitters who just get into power for the opportunity of bashing unfortunates up?

    • Draco T Bastard 13.1
      23 February 2011 at 3:27 pm

      National portray themselves as the party of business but what they really are is the party of the aristocracy. Those people who think they’re better than everyone else and so deserve a life of ease paid for by everyone else.

  14. Danyl Mclauchlan 14
    23 February 2011 at 1:34 pm

    For goodness sake. I’m sure if they had advocated for free contraception for all, you’d be shrilly complaining that “the rich” were getting some sort of hand-out and that it should be targetted at those genuinely in-need. Same if “the rich” were being given free vasectomies and “the poor” weren’t.

    I don’t know if I’d use the word ‘eugenics’, but this is certainly a blueprint for massive social engineering. The report makes a big deal out of the need for beneficiaries to use contraceptives, and the proposed penalties for female beneficiaries who have additional children are incredibly harsh. You can’t pretend these policies wouldn’t have a disproportionate impact on the birthrates of Maori and Pacific Island New Zealanders.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      23 February 2011 at 1:57 pm

      Anything the Left does with welfare reform is “Social Engineering” in the media.

      When the Right does it, nothing.

      • Akldnut 14.1.1
        23 February 2011 at 4:11 pm

        If the Left had done it the media and right would be marching down Queen St waving placades and chanting…….NANNY STATE….NANNY STATE….NANNY STATE

    • B 14.2
      23 February 2011 at 1:59 pm

      I think its debatable whether the policies (ie the penalties for subsequent children) would actually have an impact on whether beneficiaries have more children. The working group starts with the assumption that the DPB acts as an incentive for people to have children in the first place which – if they bothered to look at the evidence- is crap, since it is a pittance.

      However its pretty clear that the penalties would have a big impact on the health and wellbeing of children as their mothers are pushed further into poverty.

      • Colonial Viper 14.2.1
        23 February 2011 at 2:03 pm

        This is an exercise to appease a selected part of National’s Right Wing base.

        Expect the NATs to swerve back to the middle in the second half of this year in order to collect the rest of the votes they are seeking.

        • billy fish 14.2.1.1
          23 February 2011 at 2:08 pm

          Concur – its the big nasty Wefare Reform that the Nats protect us from, in the meantime they get through all the other bits they wanted

  15. Treetop 15
    23 February 2011 at 2:04 pm

    I support free contraception to both male and females, in particular if you qualify for a community services card as this identifies people who are struggling financially. I realise that I may appear as though I am targeting one group, but I am looking at providing contraception to those who can least afford it, regardless of age or gender.

    The question I have for Work and Income is how many vasectomies have they funded in the last two years? If the link is a problem just google vasectomy Work and Income
    http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/extra_help/special_needs_grant-22.htm

    I would have implemented a policy which lifts up single parents by getting them involved in free education or community work for 15 hours a week once their youngest turns 6, school holidays off and days off for child illness. Single parents are often unable to contribute more than they would like to, due to having sole day to day responsibility for everything (basically be unsupported) or the parent or the child have a chronic health condition, sometimes both. To increase a parents stress level and cause anxiety or frustration is not an ideal environment for a child/ren to be in.

    • Treetop 15.1
      23 February 2011 at 2:08 pm

      Everytime I use a Work and income link it never works. I have emailed several times to friends and the same happens error 404

      • todd 15.1.1
        23 February 2011 at 2:16 pm

        They have removed relevant information in an attempt to not adhere to the legally binding guidelines that govern welfare.

        • Treetop 15.1.1.1
          23 February 2011 at 3:00 pm

          I suspected that. You have to email editor@msd.govt.nz to get the SNG programme. The best site is A-Z benefits-Work and Income. You can get the 1964 Social security Act under NZ legislaion.

          Very little has changed in the decade since I was a benefit rights service advocate when on the DPB.

  16. ianmac 16
    23 February 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Of course there is a huge chunk of the population who will just hear
    “ Government moves at last to stop the bludging beneficiaries from breeding too many kids.”
    “Ah,” they might say. “At last a Government that does something. Who cares about the implications!”

  17. kultur 17
    23 February 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Rebstock is a foreigner with a highly paid job in NZ where she gets to tell the rest of us what we should be doing – go figure.

    The unemployed and beneficiaries and their cost are not a major urgent issue in this country. Provide employment and you have a country that breeds health, wealth and wisdom to quote the sages. Welfare dependance …. pffft …. revitalise the economy and provide opportunity – problem solved.

    Government for the people – by the people … not vested ideologies and interests with a profit motive at their “heart” (which is a contradiction in terms aint it just).

    But no – we buy trains from China – (after all we have trade agreements and we want the trickle down effect – otherwise known as being “pissed on through a blanket”) – we safeguard the high incomes of Movie Makers and their USA based masters by legislating in disfavour of NZ Citizens and their rights .. thereby suspending any notion of democratic process (“no taxation without representation … ” … its a reality here that we are now being taxed every time we turn around) we safeguard the investments of Keys rich mates in SCFinance.

    So are the poor (and they are in the middle class living on credit) and the below poor (unemployed and beneficiaries) the real problem – or is it just good old political expediency so that overrated westie femme fatale Bennett can justify her extensive sabbatical.

    Makes me sick. We’ve got it all arse about face and no one seems to have a hope of changing it – and the fawning sycophants in the media happily collect their bloated salaries and perks while giving key and his government metaphorical fellatio every night at 6pm on all channels.

    Bleeeeech!

    At least they are behaving with dignity this time round in Christchurch instead of a 3 ring circus – be thankful for small mercies

    • Treetop 17.1
      23 February 2011 at 3:49 pm

      You know why this government cut the Training Incentive Allowance apart from for NZQA levels 1 – 3, because they did not want educated beneficaries (invalid and DPB TIA was cut). They want people to come off welfare and clean toliets, work in rest homes and do back breaking manual work for the minimum wage. Government cannot even pay IHC workers what they are owed.

      What a contradiction saying work increases wellness and cutting the TIA. Study is just as good in lifting spirts, (I did three uni level diplomas on the TIA 5 years ago). The government are only interested in a person making money, even when they are unfit for work or have the sole responsibility for a child/ren.

      • B 17.1.1
        23 February 2011 at 4:35 pm

        YES!!! I couldn’t believe when I saw Key & Bennett blatantly talking about providing childcare and training support along with the requirement to work. They CUT the training and childcare funding! They don’t want beneficiaries to actually get ahead or get out of poverty – they just want them off the state’s books.

      • Olwyn 17.1.2
        23 February 2011 at 4:43 pm

        No, not making money, just not costing money; non-starvation at minimum cost, mainly because starvation would be bad for our reputation ,and so tourism.

        • Treetop 17.1.2.1
          23 February 2011 at 5:33 pm

          Both not making money and just not costing money.

          The NZ Super costs and this age group have high health costs. The beat up on single parents is sickening as it is not the fault of single parents that some of the liable parents are not financially contributing.

          You can argue that people on the NZ Super have paid taxes. I will argue that many on the DPB have energy and with the right support they will eventually find their feet. Also both groups produce children who pay taxes or will pay taxes.

          The reality is that there are a lot of vulnerable people in society, whether it be through age, being abandoned, ill health or due to a disaster. People require support, not to be ridiculed and told that they are a burden.

          I think the first place to start is with improving mental health out comes and making sure that people are not being prescibed a medication unless it is required. A few weeks ago I heard on the radio that 400,000 people are on anti depressants and 80,000 are on anti psychotics in NZ.

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/opinion/4603189/Editorial-Sticks-and-the-stoned

  18. Nick C 18
    23 February 2011 at 3:36 pm

    I don’t get your logic here Marty. Apparently it’s good to give out free contraception to everyone because having contraception benefits those who use it, but if we just give out free contraception to just the poor, it not only doesn’t benefit the poor, it’s an attack on them? So why isnt giving out free contraception to everyone an attack on everyone?

    It’s a program that would be perfectly consistent with other welfare and social spending. E.g. why do we just give out low cost housing to the poor, and not everyone? Because those with sufficient incomes can afford their own housing, the poor can’t. That’s why serious social problems like unplanned pregnancy, just like inadequite housing, affect the poor the most

    • Colonial Viper 18.1
      23 February 2011 at 3:44 pm

      Yeah its perfectly consistent with say, targetting police stops at Maori and the poor. Where the need is greatest, I mean.

      Another thing Nick C – beneficiary groups have not identified a lack of access to contraception as a need that they would like Government to address as a priority. In fact, Government has ignored a whole bunch of those priorityneeds, and gone for some nice top down “this will be good for you because we say so” ideas instead.

      but if we just give out free contraception to just the poor

      Remember, the proposal is not to make free contraception available to the poor. It is to make it available to beneficiaries.

      That’s the specific criticism.

      • Oleolebiscuitbarrell 18.1.1
        23 February 2011 at 4:20 pm

        On this basis, shouldn’t Marty be condemning welfare, because we single out poor people by giving it only to them?

        • kultur 18.1.1.1
          23 February 2011 at 4:52 pm

          Just when you think that the banal couldnt get any more “banallier” …

          It does

          shit happens …

          • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.1.1
            23 February 2011 at 6:15 pm

            And while we’re doing that Ole, why don’t we enshrine in human rights legislation that the wealthy and powerful are a descriminated against minority group (hmmm a tiny minority in fact) who therefore need extra protections and privileges? 🙄

  19. Sookie 19
    23 February 2011 at 6:23 pm

    I’m a leftie, but I think those on the Dole should look for work. I also think women should take charge of their own fertility and use contraception, and think very carefully about whether having kids are a good idea before going ahead and doing it. However I also think this report is a load of fascist bullshit. A whole lot of nasty, no real solutions. And no recognition that for the low skilled, there is no work out there. It’s utterly pointless bashing people and refusing to commit any resources to job creation, upskilling, childcare, sexual health education. I remember how bloody useless WINZ were when I was on the Dole briefly 11 years ago, and I doubt they’ve got any better. How are those cretins meant to job test thousands more people and manage a new funding system? They won’t.

    • QoT 19.1
      23 February 2011 at 10:23 pm

      I’m a leftie, but I think those on the Dole should look for work. I also think women should take charge of their own fertility and use contraception, and think very carefully about whether having kids are a good idea before going ahead and doing it.

      You’ve bought into a lot of rightwing strawmen there, Sookie. Living on the dole is not a holiday and raising kids on the DPB is not fun. There are no jobs. Contraception fails. Doctor’s visits are expensive and time-consuming (and no, not being in work doesn’t automatically mean you have free time to get to and sit around in doctor’s offices.)

      I agree with everything else you’ve said, but to preface your comments with that little “oh I agree bludgers are filthy scum” bit really says a lot for how well NACT have indoctrinated us with their bullshit.

      • Colonial Viper 19.1.1
        23 February 2011 at 10:29 pm

        I really wonder why people think that the ‘pursuit of work’ (“looking for work”) should be held higher than ‘actually finding work’.

        The main reason I suppose being our hollowed our job market. There are few good jobs available and almost as few shit low paying jobs available. Active programmes of wage suppression and ensuring that there are too many workers and too few jobs in NZ have seen to that.

        Seriously, a worker being paid less than $15-$16/hour is an insult and suggests someone on top is creaming it somewhere.

        • QoT 19.1.1.1
          24 February 2011 at 8:45 pm

          I’m reminded of the continued theme of US reality shows, CV – where winning is always ascribed to “wanting it more” and losing to “not wanting it enough”, as though personal virtue and determination are the only things that count when you’ve got a goal in mind.

        • felix 19.1.1.2
          24 February 2011 at 10:00 pm

          “I really wonder why people think that the ‘pursuit of work’ (“looking for work”) should be held higher than ‘actually finding work’.”

          Because it keeps wages down. Just like Key promised.

  20. burt 20
    23 February 2011 at 7:10 pm

    Marty G

    The previous Labour govt wanted to get poor women to breed more by offering them WFF… But hey that’s different isn’t it…. It’s only eugenics when National do it – right ?

    • rosy 20.1
      23 February 2011 at 10:10 pm

      “I also think women should take charge of their own fertility and use contraception”
      “to get poor women to breed”

      And another irritating assumption in this whole debate – women breeding. Although women give birth it is not the immaculate conception we’re talking about. Where is the debate about men’s fertility? teenage parents instead of teenage mothers? men relying on the state to take care of their indiscriminately-produced offspring? etc, etc.

  21. lefty 21
    23 February 2011 at 8:51 pm

    I wonder what the environmental factors are that lead to the worrying increase of right wing bastards as a percentage of the population.

    Of course being born into a privilged and wealthy family where it is easy to feel superior is probably the beginning of a downward spiral into extreme nastiness.

    Then there are the private schools where the unfortunate children of the ruling class are subjected to many years of brainwashing, too much good food and all sorts of the wrong types of toys.

    Not having to concern themselves with the cost of their tertiary education must leave a big space in their lives they have to fill with something so it is understandable that most of them use it to develop their bigotry skills.

    We really must do something to break the cycle of privilige that has been leading to the increase in sociopathic pricks before it is too late.

    We cannot afford to keep subsidising their companies, their banks, their destruction of the environment and their anti – social behaviour.

    I blame the parents.

    • Colonial Viper 21.1
      23 February 2011 at 8:58 pm

      Charity for the poor used to be a virtue. Community work and public service were well respected. A lot of people struggled and campaigned hard for the 40 hour work week, right to unionise and for the social safety net.

      Today, its a materialist, consumer driven, debt laden me me me world. Just how the capitalists and corporatists wanted it.

      • burt 21.1.1
        23 February 2011 at 10:40 pm

        Yes indeed CV – the product of a ‘don’t worry nanny has it covered for you’ generation getting old long after their ideological dream fell apart. Pay your high taxes now and retire in dignity.. year right and you still buy that crap…. F-Me you die hard lefties are crap at observing the shit side of your glorious ideology. You dim-bulbs ignore that the great dream has failed every time it has been tried and yet you think just this once you are going to get it right and the goodness will be enduring.

        Come on tell us again how if we just put taxes up and increase govt spending we will get it right this time; unlike all the previous times where that formula has resulted in artificial surpluses and poor quality public spending resulting in falling productivity & decreasing growth combined with increased state dependence and ultimately recession. The disgruntled sheeple then vote in a “nasty right wing govt” that cuts social spending and the cycle restarts….

        Yeah yeah tell us how bad capitalism is and how we need to tax them rich pricks more heavily and spend more on welfare.

        • Colonial Viper 21.1.1.1
          23 February 2011 at 10:47 pm

          Yeah yeah tell us how bad capitalism is and how we need to tax them rich pricks more heavily and spend more on welfare.

          And not just spending more on welfare, more on services for all, and more on building up our common wealth of infrastructure and resilient societal well being. Of returning respect and importance to public service and to community service.

          You dim-bulbs ignore that the great dream has failed every time it has been tried and yet you think just this once you are going to get it right and the goodness will be enduring.

          You have noticed that capitalism tends to implode every ~30 years and require the Government – which ironically you seem to abhor – to save its sorry ass.

          Time for a new system.

    • Macro 21.2
      23 February 2011 at 9:02 pm

      Yep! It’s definitely the parents! Take away the keys to their BMW’s for a while.

    • Olwyn 21.3
      23 February 2011 at 9:38 pm

      You are right Lefty: urgent action must be taken, if it is not already too late. They should be allowed only a very small quantity of shares, and these conditional on their having attended a six week live-in class on living in the real world, where they will be expected to perform such tasks as providing nutritionally balanced meals for a family of four on forty bucks a week, coping with having the power cut off, eviction threats, trying to pull together a job-interview outfit from a pile of pilled tee shirts and non-matching socks, and similar character-forming challenges.

  22. infused 22
    23 February 2011 at 9:04 pm

    I don’t see an issue here. Plan your shit. I’ve put off having kids for years because I couldn’t afford it. Why can’t other people?

    • Macro 22.1
      23 February 2011 at 9:08 pm

      If you can’t see what the issue is, you never will. Sad really.

    • kultur 22.2
      23 February 2011 at 9:11 pm

      I think its very good that you dont breed – the limitations are glaringly obvious.

    • Colonial Viper 22.3
      23 February 2011 at 9:36 pm

      Hey infused, if a girl gets pregnant inadvertently after ‘planning her shit’, she should get an abortion straight away right, in order to ‘stay on plan’?

      Is that how your world works mate?

      • QoT 22.3.1
        23 February 2011 at 10:26 pm

        Nah CV, in infused’s world contraception is free and fully available and carries no social stigma or side effects and never ever fails. And (and I can’t believe I, rabid prochoicer, have to point this shit out to fundies) no women ever want to continue their pregnancy for a variety of religious, cultural and personal reasons at all. *headdesk*

  23. Big Bruv 23
    23 February 2011 at 9:11 pm

    “The Welfare Working Group wants to get poor women to breed less by offering them free long-term contraception.”

    How is this a bad thing?

    We should not be encouraging people to have more kids than they can afford and we certainly should not be paying out increased DPB payments to women who have more kids while on the benefit.

    • Macro 23.1
      23 February 2011 at 9:23 pm

      “If you can’t see what the issue is, you never will.”
      Same goes for you BB – but then you never were very good at this “moral” shit were you?
      Anyway what place has moral values in politics?
      Just so long as the rich get richer – everything’s sweet.

      • Big Bruv 23.1.1
        23 February 2011 at 9:35 pm

        Marco

        What is “moral” about paying women to breed?
        What is “immoral” about wanting kids to have the best start in a family that can afford them?
        What is “immoral” about having parent/parents who go out to work for a living thus setting a great example to their kids”
        What is “moral” about women sitting at home doing nothing and being paid to do it?

        This has nothing to do with the rich getting richer (the very fact that you used that argument shows you have no come back) it is all about stopping the conveyor belt of feral kids and equally feral parents.

        Face it Marco, this will be a huge vote winner for the Nat’s, the working public (the people you are supposed to represent) are sick of being fleeced by parasites and bludgers, this will go down very well with the public.

        • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.1
          23 February 2011 at 9:39 pm

          What is “moral” about women sitting at home doing nothing and being paid to do it?

          Since this is how you value and view childrearing by mothers, there’s not much more which needs to be said about your asinine misogyny.

          it is all about stopping the conveyor belt of feral kids and equally feral parents.

          Ahhhhhh so we should also stop feral rich parents from having more kids? How about refined rich parents who raise feral kids? You know the ones who deal P and hang out with gang members.

          Lolz

          • Big Bruv 23.1.1.1.1
            23 February 2011 at 9:44 pm

            Viper

            The good mothers, the ones who raise their children well are almost always holding down a job at the same time.

            Why do you insist on defending women who keep breeding for a living?

            • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.1.1.1
              23 February 2011 at 9:49 pm

              The good mothers, the ones who raise their children well are almost always holding down a job at the same time.

              Lolz are you calling half the mothers in Parnell and Remuera ‘bad mothers’ simply because they are stay at home mums and can look after little Johnny and little Billy full time???

              And do you mean to say that a ‘good mother’ is an absent one working in a supermarket or office somewhere? lol

              • Big Bruv …
                23 February 2011 at 9:57 pm

                A good mother is one who sets an example for her kids Viper, that example may be working for a living or it may be a stay at home mother who is not bludging from the tax payer.

                Now, how about answering the question, why do you insist on defending women who breed for a living?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  23 February 2011 at 10:07 pm

                  So in order to be a good stay at home mother, the woman needs to have a man earning a solid income, being the breadwinner, supporting her? And they should preferably be married, right?

                  Why, how 1950’s of you Bruv! Its so…unexpected!

                  Now, how about answering the question, why do you insist on defending women who breed for a living?

                  Obviously because it is the duty of a gentleman (me) to defend a woman with child who is under scurrilous unfair attack from some bruv! I mean, some brute! lol

                  • Big Bruv …
                    23 February 2011 at 10:22 pm

                    Now, now Viper, just because I am wiping he floor with you it does not mean you can make shit up.

                    I note that you are still struggling to come up with a reason why we should pay women to sit at home and breed for a living, do you need another 24 hours or so to come up with a decent reason?

                • Deadly_NZ …
                  23 February 2011 at 10:20 pm

                  What as to compared to them that had them by accident??? Looked in the mirror lately. And I suppose that if people want to have children they have to come and beg to a snivelling little weasel like you. Oh the power of life and death oh would’nt you get your jollies over that.. You get the message??? PISS OFF

                  • Big Bruv …
                    23 February 2011 at 10:25 pm

                    Oh yes, they keep having them by accident do they?

                    One kid nearly at school leaving age, shit!…that will mean I might have to get a job, I better go out and “accidentally” have another child.

                    People can have as many kids as they want, just do not expect the tax payer to fund those kids.

                    • B …
                      24 February 2011 at 9:55 am

                      Wow you have amazing insight into how women think there bigbruv!

                      “Oh no my kid’s nearly 6 must go and sleep with random person so I can live in poverty for another 6 years and take on all the costs of raising another child…I just love working 24/7 for no pay in complete isolation from adult company soooo much and with the added bonus of being scorned and judged by society and the government.”

                • QoT …
                  23 February 2011 at 10:27 pm

                  breed for a living

                  [citation needed]

            • Jum 23.1.1.1.1.2
              24 February 2011 at 1:11 am

              Women who breed for a living; I think it’s called marriage and when you get married usually you breed. Otherwise, why, in most cases, would you get married.

              Then something might go wrong and you part company with equal partner in breeding and you accept DPB. So one minute you are breeding and that is wonderful; then next minute it’s not.

              I hope when everyone is talking about what DPB receipients receive in their hand that is offset by what is paid in by the non-custodial parent. If nothing or little is expected to be paid in then blame the person meant to be paying or the department which decided the amount.

        • Deadly_NZ 23.1.1.2
          23 February 2011 at 10:10 pm

          And who the fuck are you to accuse anyone of having or being Feral?? Unless of course you looked in the mirror this morning. I can see that you would have been right at home in germany in the 1930’s They also thought that the poor and different were feral and therefore to be put down..

          Piss of back to whale shit’s and take your right wing fanaticism with you

          • Big Bruv 23.1.1.2.1
            23 February 2011 at 10:26 pm

            “And who the fuck are you to accuse anyone of having or being Feral??”

            If the hat fits Deadly…..

            • Macro 23.1.1.2.1.1
              23 February 2011 at 10:37 pm

              ohhhh! touchy aren’t we BB! Kinda hit a nerve did I?
              Yep there is a place for ethics in Politics – and deep down in your inner self you know that that is true.
              Actually BB unless you need reminding – eugenics was Nazi policy. What is proposed is just the same. Maybe this is why the PM is rather “queasy” about it?

    • kultur 23.2
      23 February 2011 at 9:34 pm

      try this … create more jobs – make the situation for employment including in this virtual age working from home …then and then only … you can start putting pressure on people who may be rorting the system …. because they and that practice will stick out like “dogs balls”.

      The approach is wrong – no jobs – poor conditions, no incentives …. of course people are going to drink drug and fuck their brains out and inadvertantly pop out sprogs. Thats what happens. 18th and 19th century britain biggest problems were gin drinking men, women AND children – the artists like hogarth etc visually documented it. None of this is new guys.

      make the jobs – and solve the problems … A plus B equals C

      All the rest is pure fucking neo liberal bullshit and semantics

      We just dont seem to learn from History.

      • Big Bruv 23.2.1
        23 February 2011 at 9:42 pm

        And here kultar demonstrates just why we are in a mess.

        Not one mention of any personal responsibility, it is always somebody else’s fault.

        Nobody is making them drink, take drugs and fuck their brains out.

        Kultar has hit on something though, while no government can create jobs they can make people work for their benefit, this is a must, we simply cannot keep paying people to sit at home.

        Work for the dole coupled with vouchers instead of cash is a great idea.

        • Colonial Viper 23.2.1.1
          23 February 2011 at 9:46 pm

          Yeah only the rich are allowed to “drink, take drugs and fuck their brains out”

          As if they don’t do all of the above and more lolz

          while no government can create jobs

          Dumbass, last time I looked the Government created
          – teaching jobs
          – nursing jobs
          – tax collecting jobs
          – soldiering jobs
          – policing jobs
          – debt management jobs
          – forecasting jobs
          – saving stranded whales jobs
          – highway and cycle way jobs
          – civil defence jobs

          etc

          Work for the dole is a great idea and I back you fully, just ensure that the dole is topped up to the minimum wage for those hours worked thanks 😛

          • Big Bruv 23.2.1.1.1
            23 February 2011 at 10:04 pm

            Viper

            Does your “etc” include all the dead end jobs that Labour and Clark created in the public service?

            Thought not….

            And as for topping up the dole…nope, if they want to be topped up they can find a real job, have a look at trade me today Viper, there are hundreds of jobs on offer at the minimum wage.

            Mind you, I do like your idea of more Soldiers, no doubt you like Key’s idea about boot camps as well.

            • Eddie 23.2.1.1.1.1
              23 February 2011 at 10:13 pm

              yeah because the public service is proving so useless in Christchurch right now.

              The reality is the core public service never got back to the size it was even in the mid-1990s.

              • Big Bruv …
                23 February 2011 at 10:19 pm

                “The reality is the core public service never got back to the size it was even in the mid-1990s.”

                Perhaps not, but she had a bloody good go at it.

                Thankfully plenty more of them will soon be looking for real work.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  23 February 2011 at 10:20 pm

                  Not sure why you would want members of your family, your neighbours and friends being dumped on to National’s unemployment scrap heap.

                  • Big Bruv …
                    23 February 2011 at 10:48 pm

                    It does not belong to the Nat’s Viper, this is your scrap heap, you started it, well before the rest of the world.

                    Guess that is what happens when you let a history teacher take charge of the books.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      23 February 2011 at 11:17 pm

                      Two and a quarter years in to their term, it is clear that they have no plan, this failing economy is National’s.

        • Olwyn 23.2.1.2
          23 February 2011 at 9:50 pm

          What you are saying is contradictory BB: if you think that the government is able to make people work for a benefit, then you must also think that the government is able to create jobs. Surely you do not think that the government can make people work at non-jobs in exchange for a benefit? That just does not make sense.

          • Big Bruv 23.2.1.2.1
            23 February 2011 at 10:07 pm

            It makes perfect sense Olwyn, most of the social problems we face are because successive Labour governments thought it would be a great idea to pay people to sit at home doing nothing.

            We have to get people back into the work habit, if that means they dig holes all day and then fill them in again then so be it.

            • Eddie 23.2.1.2.1.1
              23 February 2011 at 10:11 pm

              “most of the social problems we face are because successive Labour governments thought it would be a great idea to pay people to sit at home doing nothing.”

              that’s why the number of people on benefits fell by 120,000 under the last Labour government and has risen by 92,000 under National, eh you fucken muppet?

              • Big Bruv …
                23 February 2011 at 10:16 pm

                How about those invalid and sickness numbers Eddie?

                How about the fact that real jobs (created by the private sector) fell under Labour toward the end of their disastrous reign, how about the fact that Labour led NZ into recession before any other country on earth?

                How about that you fucking muppet?

                • Marty G …
                  23 February 2011 at 11:16 pm

                  Those numbers include invalid and sickness benefits. They are total benefit numbers.

                  like eddie says, you’re a fucken muppet.

                  the number of employed people rose by 430,000 under labour

                • Marty G …
                  23 February 2011 at 11:17 pm

                  oh and half a dozen other oecd countries entered recession in the same quarter as us – stats.oecd.org

                  ignorance is blissful for you,eh bb?

            • Deadly_NZ 23.2.1.2.1.2
              23 February 2011 at 10:25 pm

              And you and your mates will be there with guns to make sure the lines are straight???? You really are a pathetic specimen of the genus Homo sapien.

              • Big Bruv …
                23 February 2011 at 10:28 pm

                Are you struggling with the truth Deadly?

                Never mind, you will have at least another seven years to get used to the idea.

        • kultur 23.2.1.3
          23 February 2011 at 9:55 pm

          Point is bruv – that if personal responsibility was such a great thing and a ‘norm’ then we wouldnt need laws, bylaws, compliance and a whole lot of often rather nice commercial imperatives governing and guiding society.

          You cant keep people in a positive groove if there are no jobs. Bruv – questions … are you perfect … have you never ever done any thing wrong …. have you never failed an obligation or ever put a foot wrong. Ever got a speeding ticket … or a parking ticket … or something else perhaps. If you havent then perhaps you are a god living in our midst and we should be sacrificing goats to your image.

          What is best – “work for crumbs you ingrate shithole because there are no jobs for you – and you fucking well better do it to justify your welfare …” or … here is a job – NZ has confidence in you – go for it .

          Which is nicer – which is more likely to succeed. Bruv – how would you react … or I ask again .. are you perfect – have you never done wrong – have you never had someone offer you a compassionate helping hand.

          Sir Julius Vogel pioneered employment schemes – it wasnt perfect – but it was a start.

    • Vicky32 23.3
      24 February 2011 at 12:39 am

      Except, Big Bruv, that women having more children while on the DPB happens so rarely as to be insignificant. (I know it’s a bit of an obsession with you, but still, it’s a fantasy.)
      Deb

  24. Big Bruv 24
    23 February 2011 at 10:13 pm

    Kultat

    We bloody don’t need half the “laws, bylaws, compliance and a whole lot of often rather nice commercial imperatives governing and guiding society”, they are a by product of nine failed years of the Labour government.

    This “positive grove” you talk about, how is it positive to pay them to sit at home doing nothing?, tell me why that is a good thing and I will agree with you.

    Society will always be left to carry long term bludgers, sadly that is never going to change, however what must change is the way we deal with them, get rid of cash and move to vouchers, they should work 40 hours a week for their vouchers, refusal to work or attend interviews would result in a reduced benefit.

    Unless of course you can tell me why it is a good thing to keep paying ferals to sit at home and do nothing all day.

  25. kultur 25
    23 February 2011 at 10:27 pm

    Bruv … cheers for responding ….I agree about laws, bylaws and compliance … no argument … but matey that isnt the sole responsibility of labour … Lange and Douglas started the GST thing and the compliance regime that makes businesses unpaid taxgatherers for instance … richardson, bolger – all of them are responsible and laid layer after layer of this bullshit onto business and ordinary people. Now you cant fart in public without some do-good prick telling you you are harming someone, something or some culture. Its all bullshit.

    I dont think all of them are sit at home long term bludgers – but i and many on the left of the spectrum will agree that anyone abusing the system should be held to account. But mate – jobs, dignity – it has to start somewhere. Ultimately the Right and the Left are one day going to have to decide on bipartisan approaches and stop the political pointscoring.

    People deserve employment – its good for society – Kids deserve a home with an income and stability.

    Bruv – you strike me as a good person … and looking beyond the septic exchanges …. many of us feel that these sweeping reports and recommendations are the same old rubbish we got dished up with the Auckland Supercity and other matters … all political pointscoring footballs. Solutions are what we need. it starts with Jobs.

    We are what – several months into the supercity and still we dont know the true cost – and no one is saying anything including Rodney Hide. Not defending Len Brown – i think he has failed to communicate and has been a little nieve in his approach. I also think he is being set up but thats conjecture on my part. Im fucking sick of the left vs right debate up to my eyebrows. Whats right for NZ is what counts.

    When does it all come down to what is good for NZ bruv? You want the same thing i want – a fair and just NZ where the majority of the populace are earning, able to care for their families and circulate the money right round the economy.

    Dont we all want that …

  26. Deadly_NZ 26
    23 February 2011 at 10:33 pm

    Ferals??? You really are a wanker of the first order. But your “holier than thou” horseshit is the usual crap from the radical right.

  27. Big Bruv 27
    23 February 2011 at 10:46 pm

    Kultur

    A bipartisan approach is a great idea, however we both know it is never going to happen because unlike you and I the pollies do not give a shit really, it is all about getting themselves re-elected.(there is one exception to this rule and that is Key, you guys will never defeat him as long as you insist on treating him as a career politician)

    Despite the words of morons like Deadly there are very few on the right who want to do away with the welfare state, many of us believe passionately in the idea of a safety net, security for those who loose their job through no fault of their own. Many of us want to give those people much more, we do not want them to worry about the bills and such, we also feel the same way about the few genuine invalid and sickness beneficiaries.

    The same applies to those on the DPB, nobody is saying that a women should have to stay in an abusive relationship, these ladies deserve more than we give them but they have an obligation to return that to society by not having any more kids while they are on the DPB and by being a good mother who sets a great example, if that means she holds down a part time job as well or works while the kids are in school then great.

    However, any women who goes on the DPB should be told then and there that should she have any more kids while being on the DPB she will not receive any more money….and by the way, here are as many free condoms/pills as you need.

    The problem is that there are so many people who are abusing the system, these people are stealing food from the mouths of hard working Kiwis and from the mouths of decent folk who have fallen on hard times.

    The work for the dole idea and the work for the DPB scheme is not one that would apply to everybody, only long term bludgers and those who have made no effort to find work.

    While I agree that a bipartisan approach is a nice idea we both know it will never happen, too many people on the left see this as a class issue when it is nothing of the sort, and, sadly too many see it as a vote winner.

    As for what I want, I want everybody to have a job, now that is not possible but as a fall back I want everybody pulling their weight, I want those who are out of work to have the dignity of a decent income and to not be tarred with the same brush as the parasites of this world, all I want in return is for those out of work to be out there on a daily basis looking for work., if they refuse then they can dig holes all day as far as I am concerned, the social problems we face as a result of paying people to do nothing are tearing this country apart.

    Is that a bit much to ask?

    • kultur 27.1
      23 February 2011 at 10:59 pm

      Thanks for that considered response bruv – much appreciated.

      I only have a problem with some areas – and those areas are approach or preconceptions .. i dont think all of us on the left see it as class war (remember i may need to fully re-read yr response again) or a class issue … I’ve met people where both husband and wife work up to 3 jobs each – the kids run wild – the parents are totally fucking knackered at the best of times … i’ve met 40 to 50 year old men who have not been able to find anyone to employ them – mostly (and i know some people are going to get the wrong end of this statement) they have been reduced despite quals and experience to trying to get service station or fast food jobs but are beaten out by recent migrants (and i am talking about very recent migrants in the teens to late teens age bracket).

      I’ve seen an instance of a couple (husband is a public servant well paid in law enforcement) who are an example of many out there – middle class – income of approx 80 to 90K … $300,000 of unsecured debt – mostly credit cards.

      What i am trying to say – is that the malaise affecting this country is not class war bruv – its hitting at every level of our society and its making the middle class the new poor.

      This is no longer a Left and Right thing .. this is doing the right thing by New Zealand.

      key and his sycophants are not doing the right thing mate – and i will say it upfront – Neither did Clark and Company. The people of this country need to be cared for – provided with opportunities and a hand up not a hand out.

      Bruv – unless we get some sense and sensibility into this great nation – we are facing serious problems. To those of us on the left – we see a Key government with no plan – every move is a negative “punish the bastards” move.

    • Blondie 27.2
      23 February 2011 at 11:15 pm

      I still fail to understand why free, reliable contraception can’t be supplied to ALL women – as opposed to only beneficiaries.

      Pills and condoms aren’t the most effective forms of contraception, anyway – despite what many men might think. Last time I was on the pill, I ended up pregnant.

      Besdies all that though – all this beneficiary bashing isn’t gonna solve anything if there just aren’t any jobs for them to go to.

      The average beneficiary is on the bones of their ass, NOT living the high life. It is beneficiary fraudsters – those who work under the table, or who live with a partner whilst claiming the DPB – who really are creaming the system.

      Genuine beneficiaries have it hard, and all these proposed changes won’t achieve anything except widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

      And Kultar – I am appalled that anyone would be so ridiculously stupid as to accumulate $300k unsecured debt, with only $80-90k income. I hope that was a typo, although even $30k credit card debt is approximately $29k too much.

      • Jum 27.2.1
        23 February 2011 at 11:22 pm

        All women should receive free contraception and abortion if they so require. Men, on the other hand, should keep it zipped or sheathed and so many little troubles would be avoided.

        Equal blame to equal partners.

        Rapists should be bobbeted.

      • QoT 27.2.2
        24 February 2011 at 8:48 pm

        Sexual-health-related GP visits (including for contraception) are completely covered for women up to age 22, (or at least they were when I was 22!) and if you’re able to use a fully-subsidised form of contraception (but not all people can!) then it’s just a $3 dispensing fee at the pharmacy for 6 months of the Pill and all the condoms you can carry. That needs to be extended, regardless of a person’s employment status.

    • Jum 27.3
      23 February 2011 at 11:17 pm

      big bruv – do your research. Often women have to take DPB when the next child is already expected because the spouse can’t handle it and leaves or starts beating up on her.

      Sort out your bloody fellow men and stop blaming women. Tell ’em to wear a condom or keep it zipped up. Pregnancy is a shared miracle.

      Unless you’re catholic in which case you’d be encouraging more catholic babies so you can take over the world!

    • Vicky32 27.4
      24 February 2011 at 12:46 am

      “all I want in return is for those out of work to be out there on a daily basis looking for work., if they refuse then they can dig holes all day as far as I am concerned, the social problems we face as a result of paying people to do nothing are tearing this country apart.”
      Moronic, BB. I look for work every day, and have for years now. But I can, my children are grown. Do you really expect mothers of children to say “Not now darling, I have to go and have another interview” when her child needs to be fed, or comforted?
      Dig holes all day? Would you? Of course not, so don’t be a barsteward!

  28. Zaphod Beeblebrox 28
    23 February 2011 at 10:59 pm

    So which of Rebstock’s ideas do you think are going to solve our social problems.? Making mothers of 3 month olds go out to work? Or requiring 16 or 17 yo’s to live with their abusive parents?

    Thats really going to make our country a better place to live.

  29. Big Bruv 29
    23 February 2011 at 11:03 pm

    Kultar

    Bloody nice to have a decent chat with somebody from here for a change.

    I will respond but right now I have to go to bed as I have to get up early and do my voluntary work in the morning before I start my paid job for the day.

    If you want to continue this chat tomorrow I would be more than happy to do so.

    • The Voice of Reason 29.1
      23 February 2011 at 11:14 pm

      If you want to contribute to charity, why don’t you just pay your debts?

      • big bruv 29.1.1
        24 February 2011 at 8:09 am

        Oh silly me, I forgot that people like Voice have no idea what the word voluntary means.

        Socialists never do anything without being paid, they simply steal from the tax payer.

    • kultur 29.2
      23 February 2011 at 11:20 pm

      Bruv – most willing to do so. I have found myself drawn into the vortex of negative exchange often … but i think mostly people need to try to dialogue.

      I dont like the current National Act government and i have some real issues with John Key … but i think all of us at heart – have the welfare and future of this nation at heart.

      Happy to continue to dialogue and disagree etc etc

      • felix 29.2.1
        24 February 2011 at 9:53 pm

        “but i think all of us at heart – have the welfare and future of this nation at heart”

        I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. The country is currently being run by people with the welfare and future of a tiny minority – perhaps a few percent – of the population at heart.

  30. Jum 30
    23 February 2011 at 11:10 pm

    ‘voluntary work’ big bruv – I suppose that is putting out the rubbish in the morning then?

  31. Jum 31
    24 February 2011 at 12:04 am

    Big Bruv …23 February 2011 at 10:48 pm It does not belong to the Nat’s Viper, this is your scrap heap, you started it, well before the rest of the world.

    – Guess that is what happens when you let a history teacher take charge of the books. –

    ‘Dr Cullen moved to New Zealand in his childhood and went on to attend Christ’s College on a scholarship. He graduated with a BA in Mathematics and a MA in Pure and Applied Mathematics and History from the University of Canterbury, where he won the titles of Junior and Senior University Scholar. Dr Cullen then travelled to the University of Edinburgh on a Commonwealth Scholarship and gained a PhD in Social and Economic History, after which he returned to New Zealand to take up his post at Otago.’

    Caught you out in a lie big bruv – it’s getting to be a habit your porkies.

    But then that’s what rightwingers do – lie and mislead. From the top to the underclasses, i.e. JKeyll right down to big bruv.

    • big bruv 31.1
      24 February 2011 at 8:12 am

      Wow….so Cullen can count.

      I suppose that makes him more qualified than Goff, what a pity he did not use some of what he learned when it came to paying more than double the price for a train set that the nation does not need.

      Why is it that you people always insist on rewriting history?

      • felix 31.1.1
        24 February 2011 at 9:48 pm

        Once more at half speed for bruv: “a… PhD… in… Social… and… Economic… History”

        History teacher. Yeah that’d make your hero Key a bank teller.

  32. Bruce 32
    24 February 2011 at 5:43 am

    While Big Bruv’s arguments may look good on paper, he simply looks like a cold and uncaring person (as always). It is not credible to attack unemployed people while his government sits on its arse doing nothing about jobs, just like they did last time in power.
    To argue that people should have children when they can afford them is not realistic. We are constantly bombarded with information such as “fertility drops as you get older”. Typically the message is that the best time to have children is in our twenties – this is not usually a time when people can afford to have children as this is often when career development is in its beginning stages. To be blunt, going by Big Bruv’s arguments, there is never an affordable time to have children by low, middle, or high income families (why not go and buy a new car instead). Children are an investment in the future of our country.
    To boil this down, if employers such as Big Bruv have their way, then they will simply run out of people to employ.

    • big bruv 32.1
      24 February 2011 at 8:16 am

      Bruce

      Are you a bit slow?, or like most lefties do you not bother with the counter argument and fall straight back on your preprepared answers?

      Seeing as the rest of your mates have avoided the question I might ask you, why is it a good thing to pay women to stay at home and breed for a living?

      Give me one good reason and I will happily agree with you.

      • B 32.1.1
        24 February 2011 at 10:03 am

        At current birthrates we are only just replacing our population.

      • Olwyn 32.1.2
        24 February 2011 at 10:29 am

        Bruv, here is a link that may challenge the presupposition behind your claim; that significant numbers of women do stay home and breed for a living. It comes from the Christchurch Methodist Mission, and they appear to have done their homework. Even if you assume that staying at home and breeding for a living is a choice on offer, these people, who actually work at the coal face, see no evidence that anyone has babies to get more welfare.

        http://www.mmsi.org.nz/images/stories/pdfs/welfare4pager72.pdf

        Anti-spam word: church (which is spooky)

        • Blondie 32.1.2.1
          24 February 2011 at 5:46 pm

          I think the majority of women who “breed for a living” aren’t on the DPB anyway. They’re women who married wealthy or high-earning men, who know that the best way to guarantee their lifestyle is to bear those men children. (Child support’s a killer, apparently.)

          Of course, United Future would think we should pay THOSE women to breed (income-splitting?) – whilst punishing the evil DPB recipients for daring to get dumped or to flee abusive relationships.

    • Macro 32.2
      24 February 2011 at 4:40 pm

      Actually Bruce, BB “arguments” don’t even look good on paper! They are simply nothing more than soundbites – empty of meaning and little more than clanging tin cans. He has no logic to speak of, and little in the way of rational argument. His presence on this site is to do nothing more than to disrupt, annoy, and if, at all possible, delay any positive action. His “work” is to be entirely negative, as abusive as possible, and to frustrate – so there is no necessity to put together a cohesive argument. It’s all grist to the mill to him – you say one thing – he will say the opposite and as outrageously as possible. He is essentially, an ignorant, stupid, fool. Not worth the space or the forum that is given him here.

  33. Danyl Mclauchlan 33
    24 February 2011 at 10:26 am

    Seeing as the rest of your mates have avoided the question I might ask you, why is it a good thing to pay women to stay at home and breed for a living?

    That’s an easy question to answer: it’s not a ‘good’ idea, just as it’s not a good idea to pay, say, older men to sit at home and be paralysed, which is what happens when they have strokes and go on the invalids benefit. It’s simply a ‘better’ idea than letting young mothers and their children or stroke victims starve to death.

  34. Rod 34
    22 March 2011 at 12:24 am

    To hell with rebstock and her bunch of bludgers, for they are the biggest welfare bludgers of all!.
    These filthy scum are about to set NZer against NZer…
    All I know is: our family will make it as expensive and hard as we can for these devils to pull off this scam!!!

    OUR PRISONS WILL SOON BE FILL!,,this is National govt at its best

Links to post