It's all very complicated, and I hope the National Party doesn't fall into the trap of expecting all single parents to get a job. When kids are under 5, isn't mothering or fathering a fulltime, rewarding, hugely important job? Instead of castigating DPB mums or dads with pre-school kids, we should set conditions on their being paid by the taxpayers and make sure those conditions are met: health checks, vaccinations, learn to count, read and reach all the milestones.
Now what political philosophy would one expect that view to come from? Compassionate conservatism. Deborah Coddington, the state-embracing conservative. Who would have thought it.
Of course parenting under-fives is a hugely important job. Which is exactly why we shouldn't be paying a benefit to people who don't see that or know how to do it. Those who do value parenting are those most likely to take full responsibility for it.
This 'policy' has a gaping hole in it. It doesn't stop young newcomers starting on the DPB and it doesn't stop them continuing to grow their families to maintain their DPB lifestyle. Don't forget that a majority on this benefit started there as teenagers.
And the state laying down requirements? Next she will be promoting Cindy Kiro's grand plan for all parents, on benefit or not, to submit their children for state-checkups.
I know Deborah is a sincere, caring person but it's increasingly difficult to rely on her to pursue any one idea or approach over time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Stop reading Cods and Trots and the world does make a little more sense!
Coddington has the intellectual ability of a flea and has always relied on the opinions of others. Her views are only those of the last person to get to her. She flip flops because the individuals feeding her the ideas she "holds" changes along the way.
Is it really true that the majority on the DPB started there as teenagers?
Of the 96,000 on this benefit today, I would have thought most were there after relationship breakups. Teenagers going onto the DPB were not in one, that is why they go onto it.
On another point, the idea that only the right sort of mother should receive support when raising a child, is of a moral judgement, not an economic or political one.
Forcing some to adopt their children out by denying them support, reminds me of what Chris Trotter would have called parish committee community authority over the lives of others.
After all just about all mothers receive some support for raising their children, not just those on benefits.
We never had conditions for that sort of universal support (Family Benefit) in the past.
So why the exceptionalism for those raising up children without a partner or a working partner?
SPC, Qualification - started on welfare as teenagers. Most start on the dole and migrate to the DPB.
At least 37,600 of the current DPB caseload did BUT records only go back to 1993. Add approx 7,000 who have been on the DPB 15 years or more CONTINUOUSLY.
Now add in the many, many people who have cycled on and off welfare, in and out of relationships, who nevertheless first went on welfare as a teenager and I believe it is safe to say we are looking at a majority. I cannot prove it without access to information only the Ministry has. But I keep working on it.
I didn't say only the right sort of mother should receive support.
Nobody would be forced to adopt out their child just because there is no DPB. Before the DPB many unmarried mothers kept their children.
"Qualification - started on welfare as teenagers. Most start on the dole and migrate to the DPB."
At least 37,600 of the current DPB caseload did BUT records only go back to 1993."
can we have more clarification here? do these people go directly from the dole to the DPB? or have they merely been on the dole at some point before the dpb? in which case the base-rate of people who have been on the dole from the entire population should be used as a comparison...
i remember the msd 2004 report stated that approx55% of people on the dpb were divorced. that appears to me a pretty high rate in a country where de facto unions instead of marriage are becoming more popular. i believe the propoportion of teenagers was about 5%. i thought the median age of a dpb recipient was approx30; the same as for first-time mothers in the entire population-- but correct me if i'm wrong...
and by the way, 37,000 of 96,000 is NOT most by anyone's analysis.
and when are menz.org going to get back to you?!
"i remember the msd 2004 report stated that approx55% of people on the dpb were divorced."
In 2004 (April) 3,249 people on the DPB were divorced (pq 5475). Approx 2.9 percent.
"i believe the proportion of teenagers was about 5%."
The proportion that are teenagers is usually 2 - 3 percent. Which is to be expected when only a two year age-band is being considered. They then progress through the many other age-bands between 20 and 65. And the steady intake never lets up.
"do these people go directly from the dole to the DPB?"
I don't know. The point is the welfare habit or default setting is established under twenty.
"and by the way, 37,000 of 96,000 is NOT most by anyone's analysis."
You discounted the rest of my comment.
"and when are menz.org going to get back to you?!"
They have. I just haven't had time to digest it.
It has taken me a good 1/2 hour to respond to your comments, some which were way off the mark. So if you make more and I don't respond, you can take it I don't have time.
It is possibly true that many, of the women remaining on the DPB after their relationship breaks down, are less well educated than those others (who find employment for themselves more quickly and spend a shorter period on the DPB). Thus they may have been unemployed on leaving shool (or losing their first job) in the late 80's and 1990's period (many were unemployed in those times).
Of course, if one has the education it is easier to make work pay and find care for the children. Those with less schooling earlier will of course do best if given education/training assistance into better paid and more secure employment. Simply pushing women into low paid work which they may come and go from, is not a long term solution.
Lindsay nobody has done more than you have in this country in terms of pointing out both the financial and social nightmare that more than 30 years of unconditional state welfare has foisted upon society. And yes, I still believe that it is immoral to expect others to pay for the upbringing and care of your children. However, chanting that philosophy from the comfort of a broadcasting studio, then a Parliamentary position, does nothing to change the status quo. How are we going to break the cycle? Do we just pull the rug from under the feet of those currently on the dpb, when successive governments have promised them it will always be there? Do we just stop it in, say six month, one year, five years? Campaigning against the dpb, as a politician, is difficult because it is now so entrenched that most people know someone who was or is on it. They feel like they're attacking the parenting skills of their friends. Going back into journalism, where I have to visit the houses of some of these people, sit in the court waiting rooms, see how hopeless their lives are, makes me realise that if we just canned the dpb their children would suffer. Is that what we want? I'd much rather work towards ending the dpb, except for extreme emergency cases, because children who are now being raised on it are properly fed, clothed, educated, and given a future, so they don't see their future as the same sad life as their mums' or dads'. If that means placing conditions on their accepting taxpayer money, so be it. I don't see how that makes me "state-embracing". These people are accepting taxpayers' money, shouldn't they in return agree to use that money for its intended purpose? Does this give me the intellectual ability of a flea? What would you do, "anonymous"?
Deborah Coddington
Deborah, We are in broad agreement but conditions mean sanctions for non-compliance and then we again run into the scenario of the sanctions hurt the child. Apart from which existing sanctions are there for political window dressing and not often applied. And the policing would be a nightmare. Plus there is the risk of driving offending parents (with their children)into further isolation as they try to avoid authorities. For instance, is it more important to get the child to school or to get it to school well-clothed? Settling for just the first might be the better option.
I too sit in the homes of people who are on benefits, those who have asked for help. They are depressed quite often, stuck in a self-destructive rut, sometimes taking out their frustrations on their children and partners and then hating themselves for it. Sometimes wanting to break out of their current state of affairs but facing what they see as insurmountable hurdles (which aren't necessarily). Unable to see two or three years into the future and how their life might improve because they are bogged down in sameness and struggle day after day. And the state gave these people an expectation as far as social security is concerned. It cannot simply be whipped away.
I'm working on some reform ideas at the moment in anticipation of a talk I've been asked to give. Maybe I'll post them when finished.
Post a Comment