I don't want to repeatedly beat up on Paula Bennett and the job she is doing but her response to Coroner Wallace Bain's call for spot checks on all children under five is incredibly ill-considered and should have been a firm 'no'.
"As a country, we have to decide what we are prepared to give up to stop other children experiencing the abuse baby Nia did."
So those of us who aren't prepared to put up with state authorities sticking their noses into our homes to examine our child-raising abilities (remember the sort of standards being set for what constitutes abuse these days), we are heels. We are now the problem.
Yesterday I had to take both of my children to the doctors. There was a couple with a sick baby, obviously anxious and obviously adoring of their child. This is how most parents are. They love their children desperately. The state has no business monitoring their care of their children. The idea is quite repulsive.
So no Ms Bennett. I will defend the right of good parents to be left alone. Harassing them will do nothing.
The state has a role to play in preventing real harm to children and it is eminently possible to identify where those children are.
Stop prevaricating and buck-passing. You are the Minister.
8 comments:
Dead babies are not the fault of government. No measure of intrusion or intervention will stem the flow. We need to face the facts here; despite the publicity and outpouring of shock, horror and hand wringing; there's a bunch of evil ingrates who will continue to murder their babies! If family can't protect it's children, then simply, the government has no show.....despite their misguided efforts.
Yes, she is barking up the wrong tree, yet again.
Stop paying mindless welfare to druggies, and start monitoring the obvious cases, not the majority who are decent parents.
It's just head in the sand stuff, brushing the real problem away, blaming the law-abiding.
Life in NZ. For real?
Paula Bennett needs to be reminded that the ends does not justify the means.
I agree with Bruce,
The government has very limited means to try and prevent this sort of child abuse - what are you gonna do, employ someone to stand watch over every child every minute of every day???
Certainly bringing back some form of real Plunket care would be a great step towards helping out those mums who are struggling to cope, and info sharing between the various govt depts might help identify at risk families, but it is not going to stop X (or X's current friend-with-benefits) from actually killing the kids.
Dead babies/children are not the fault of society, or even government, they are the fault of the pieces of flotsam that actually did the deed.
And I am rather concerned about the proposal to prosecute someone who doesn't stop it from happening - how exactly are you supposed to prove that you have/haven't tried?
Bandycoot
I think opportunity exists to 'de-industry' the support services.
My experience with state funded support services like CYF's is the usual 'rationing' and prioritization of critical cases only - that we see with all socialist planning.
These services have become self sustaining industries, and are divorced from the communities in which they operate. The incentive is around justifying budgets and managing risk.
Significant opportunity exists to turn these services over to localized NGO's and charities who are part of the communities in which they operate, operate efficiently and place some of the emphasis back on the community to manage the problems.
Furthermore, the community can OWN the successes and failures, rather than increasing the distance between US & THEM.
These voluntary interactions can also help to prevent small problems becoming the horrific situations we see on a daily basis. We have REAL experience, real people who are good at loving supportive interactions all around us.
There is no utopia, but clearly we can see state intervention appears to offer more disease than cure.
The other issue is that if every child is monitored, it will put enormous pressure on limited resources to do so. I worry that this pressure will push social workers to be very conservative, and flag problems that don't really exist, lest they be blamed should they get it wrong. Which is "better"? Falsely accusing good parents on flimsy suspicion so that 'resources' can be assigned and a 'more in depth investigation completed' (stress on the family), or recognizing that social workers can only do so much, and will periodically get it wrong. As society becomes more and more risk averse (this entire recommendation is a cry to be risk averese!), then I fear it will be the former.
Shane Pleasance; brilliant! I absolutely concur that "de-industrialisation" of the so called support services must occur, and soon - like now! They are the cancer that feeds off society at the expense of family unity to the ultimate detriment of children, their well being and welfare.
Social welfare reform?
Take for example subject “A”. “A” is in his late 30s. “A” hasn’t worked in his life and nor has he ever wanted to, being supported by the NZ government since leaving school. “A” is a very clever man and a very lazy man. He knows “the system”. He’s worked it for a very long time. He knows he falls into the category of “long term dependant”. He hasn’t had a work trial in the last decade. He was once offered $5,000 by WINZ if he could come up with a viable small business proposal. It didn’t even have to be repaid! But not having any inclination to work – “A” didn’t bother. He had a few ideas but no inclination to pull himself out of bed to work for his own money.
Having much spare time to study his passion for horse racing “A” also was a proficient TAB gambler purchasing his first house with winnings from a substantial TAB windfall. So he was freehold. Yippee!! He didn’t divulge this to WINZ and thereby obtained accommodation supplements. And when WINZ discovered he had his own house – they didn’t even bother asking for him to repay the decade of supplements he had been receiving !
Now “A” has made a child. He looks after his child just enough to be entitled to the DPB. He gets the DPB full time for looking after a child for half of the time. The working mother pays the IRD child support. And while he’s not looking after his child he’s playing poker at pubs in the evening, sleeping and gambling on horses.
“A” is also lucky enough to be able to pull the “medical condition” card if the threat to place him in work ever raises its ugly head. He seems to have all avenues covered.
How depressing that the system has let “A” lead this lifestyle care of the taxpayer. How depressing that he has fallen into the “too hard” basket.
And how depressing to know that my family’s taxes go towards the welfare of this man and his now, child, in the way he has chosen to exist care of the welfare state.
Reforms are needed now but they’ve been a very long time coming.
Best of luck with the reforms!
Post a Comment