NZ Centre for Political Research

This week's poll asks:

Do you agree with the Coroner that there should be compulsory state intervention and monitoring oversight of the care of children living in single parent households where their parents are in receipt of a domestic purposes benefit?

*Being a good parent is difficult, being a single parent requires extra assistance. Monitoring will help. Alison

*The horrific ones are already in the system. If the department was doing it paid job in the first place these children would more than likely still be alive. We don't need another paid group formed just to monitor/watch over everyone on the DPB. Get tough and stop pussy footing around on existing ones already in the system. Too much PC is killing the children in more ways than one. Meg

*I feel strongly that we need to go back to the stage where young, teenage, single, parents go home to their parents for support. Wendy

*Common sense at last. Maybe 20 years too late though. However better late than never. Vern

*That is bureaucracy building. Better to make receipt of benefits conditional on residing with their parents, gandparents or sanctioned
'foster parent', so that a mature influence comes to bear on them,help them and deter arsehole potential partners. Vic

*I think pregnant teenagers should have counselling with regard to adopting out their child. Why is this such a taboo subject? Also there should be no extra income for further children born out of wedlock. As metioned some females think that this is an easy way to make money - parenting is the hardest and most important job in the community. Why leave to (mostly) uneducated women. Andrea

*Include compulsory motherhood training and no dpb if father not named. Douglas

*Obtrusive, perhaps? And will undoubtedly be decried by those whose “rights” are “violated” – but who by and large have contributed little or nothing to society. And why only the DPB? Where are the strings attached to all benefits? Dave

*The DPB should stop after a maximum of 2 children--they would learn fast! Colleen

This week's poll asks:

Do you agree with the Coroner that there should be compulsory state intervention and monitoring oversight of the care of children living in single parent households where their parents are in receipt of a domestic purposes benefit?

*While I totally agree that the Welfare system as we have it now, is actually counter-productive, another major factor that wasn't touched on, is that alcohol makes matters much worse in these situations! Ted

*I agree with the coroner in that any person raising a child and tax payer money in the form of a benefit or 'assistance' is overseen or monitored as he puts it. Rachael

*This is so obvious and yet all we get when contemplating this problem is talk. When are we going to get some politicians with the courage to actually do something about our welfare problems. Ronmac

*Yes - there's been a lot of talking around this problem but a lack of real determinaion to attack it at its roots.
I would suggest that some of the monitoring be done by people who have successfully raised children of their own and who can give practical advice. Muriel makes the valid point about the freeloading males moving in with the recipients of welfare payments and who pose a potential danger to the children. Make it clear to the welfare recipients that if unrelated males move in then the benefit is terminated! I suggest that this monitoring be extended to cover homes where he children are coming to school inadequately clothed or without breakfast of lunch. While we rightly focus of dealing with child abuse let's not forget to deal with child neglect as well.
All that being said if the solo parent is providing a safe and secure home then let him or her get on with their life with the option of asking for help or advice if they need it. Denis

*Absolutely! What a brilliant idea. Janie

*A glaring omission in any discussion on welfare & child abuse is BIRTH CONTROL. If 'unwanted' children weren't born in the first place there would be no one to abuse! ref "Tradegy of the Commons" by Garit Harding (?). Tim

*What ever happened to the Plunket Nurse? Selwyn

*Not only intervention, but unless the mother identifies the father, there should not be any benefit paid for subsequent children to a mother living on the DPB and the father must contribute to raising the child. No father ID = no benefit. Maurice

*I maintain that compulsary education must be part of every High School curriculum on the subjects of: The importance and personal reward of being a valued contributing hard worker, (that there MUST a compulsary commitment from the Government that there will BE!!! A job available that fits in with every person's natural Talents and interests,who is entering the work force.)that it is crucial to a child's wellbeing to have both a Mother and a dependable hard working Father, together in the same Family home, to be taught what a healthy Loving environment is..I maintain that the differences be taught in High School that demonstrates the different interpretation styles that are evident between Males and Females.(Very Important point.) I urge that Respect, Self Worth, Boundaries, be taught, that consequences of Abuse will felt, will negatively affect a person's Life and will be disciplined. Sandra

*Simply because that twit from ther left wing got a law passed that outlawed smacking, it doesn't happen now, all is fixed. Sam

*I totally agree with the concerns you express-but I see the words 'compulsory state monitoring' and they frighten me..... look at the situation we already have with the anti-smacking bill- compulsory state intervention in many homes which don't require it.
I see any state intervention as a dangerous thin end of the wedge- who makes the decisions about which parents are 'good'? Once again the anti-smacking bill comes to mind. Esther

*To hell with the political correctness and the privacy act lets protect the children at all costs..Diane

*I'm not sure how this would work without susbtantial funding and it would require well thought out guidelines for those doing the monitoring, but it is essential if we are to make any difference in outcomes for the children. Susan

*DPB for one child only would be a start,compulsory sterilization if they can't control themselves and the same for male or female for child abuse. Please don't publish my name with this suggestion. Yvonne

*The trouble is that the abuse occurs when the visiting person doing the supervision is not around. The horse has already bolted.Children should not be allowed to have children, they should be removed. Anonymous

*I couldn't agree more. At last a responsible person (the coroner) has come out with common sense. Politicians, take note and do it. Sheila

*My daughter and her 3 children (my grandkids) live with my wife and I in a very loving and caring environment. This is another hope of state policing. i.e. similar to communism. Back off PCers. Robert

This week's poll asks:

Do you agree with the Coroner that there should be compulsory state intervention and monitoring oversight of the care of children living in single parent households where their parents are in receipt of a domestic purposes benefit?

*This is the "ambulance at the bottom of the cliff" approach, the real answer is to do away with the DPB for good. Irvine

*There is a case to be made for some people on benefits to be paid in kind i.e. their authorised bills paid and a bag of groceries delivered once a week rather than giving them money to spend on booze and drugs. K

*Stop giving them cash to waste on booze and drugs, what ever happened to food stamps? David

*Why don't our Maori leaders take note and do something! David

*Great article, hits the spot right on!!! Peter

*A most necessary first step. Derek

*1. Its only going to grow another govt dept
2. As a single man I've had close association with 3 solo mothers in my lifetime, their sons are fantastic boys, young men now, so I dont think DPB automatically means bad kids, so I think the correlation is bad people/benefits, not solo parents/benefits
3. I've just come back from Europe, the English problem isnt a fault of the benefit system, its a fault of all Poms middle class and above being "above" everyone else. In the past immemorial the frustration of lower classes has been deflected to world conflict, which isnt available so much right at the moment. John

*Definately 100% YES. Emily

*Yes, I most definitely agree with the Coroner. It's heartbreaking to hear of all the poor innocent children being abused and murdered in their homes. However, I despair that anything will be done about it. Until we can get rid of this PC claptrap that we have to live with in this country where we're not allowed to say it as it is and, unless we get a Government with the b****s to do something, things will stay the same. It's tragic. Margaret

*The children in care of a single parent are entitled to the best quality of life that can be provided. The UN commitee stated we have no child rights-based policy, the infant child mortality rate is shocking, unchanged over the past 10 years. Compare that with the rights of lawbreakers, their rights defined in legislation which still ensures some quality of life. We live in a democracy? Hypocrisy more like. Barry

*It is a sensible suggestion. Of course it would be less necessary if there was a reform of our welfare system to remove these bad outcomes. Rob

*As importantly, the govt should not be making benefits automatically available to single mothers. It's madness to reward people for acting irresponsibly. Shane

*Yes, and fund the Maori proportion of it with reimbursement of the millions of taxpayer dollars paid out in so-called Maori land grievances. Bruce

*However I do believe that all teenage and low income violent relationships be monitored. Not all single Mums are violent even though they may receive the benefit. There are very many single mums whose husbands have walked out to form new relationships (and single Dads too) who are fantastic parents with great children who are doing well in society. They should not have the eye of the government on them because their life has not turned out as they had hoped, their lives are difficult enough. Susannah

*It might sound a great idea - but it's the start of a slippery slope. To implement this would be seen as discriminatory against single parents in our current political environment. What we are more likely to see is mandatory Well-Child membership for all children, which will achieve nothing.

One of the most common phrases I notice from young mothers discussing the real issues with parenting is "Don't tell Plunket, but I..." (fed my child this / had to smack them / put them to sleep on their tummy...). People don't tell Plunket what is really going on, because they don't want a lecture, or worse because they fear they might be reported to CYFS (it truly happens). Many people just go to Plunket to smile and nod and get their children weighed. Some find the service more useful of course, but ONLY if they voluntarily discuss their issues with Plunket. If you are forced to go along, you aren't going to volunteer such information, and Plunket won't find out about problems.

We need more truly independent charities and individuals interacting with parents who actually trust them enough to discuss real issues (physical discipline, drug problems, relationship issues) without fear of being reported to the authorities. State-mandated agencies will never be trusted to this extent, and will interfere in many people's lives destructively for no real gain. Samuel

*This is only a first step of several needed for effective reform. We pass the buck and leave it to somebody else to help our neighbours. And on the other side, we have set up a society that isolates people in need of help, and they have no access to those around who would willingly help - if they only knew about the problems. The Nanny State is a failure. Good NGOs in our communities need to be given the freedom and help to have more hands on with such problems. We must set up a network of caring, loving people who will take it on themselves to take on the role of a loving extended family. Race and colour are irrelevant. Keith

*ALL young women need to be trained at 4th form school age level in the importance of and regular use of contraceptives (pills or condoms) to prevent unwanted pregnancies - backed up by gradual removal of the DPB. End of story. Brian

*But that will never be enough because the perpetrators always know how to put on a good act for the authorities when it suits them. The ONLY way to kerb this epidemic is for a Government to have the balls to change the Law so the DPB and Unemploynment Benefits are only paid for a finite period. Two years is more than enough time to get back on your feet. For those who can't find work, there will be Government jobs where if they don't front for a day, they do not receive any pay for that day. Eight hours work will yield them 8 hours pay at the minimunm wage rate. There are masses of jobs which need to be done in this country. Once people get into the work force, they will soon learn that the more they make an effort and develop, their work load and pay will develop accordingly. It's a no-brainer and it seems our policitians have no brains to see this simple solution for themselves. Delwyn

*I believe we are facing these sickening outcomes because the family unit, whether it be single or other wise has had its sense of authority and autonomy gradually eroded away by government fiddling and goody good researchers. EG: anti smacking bill. Mothers are ambushed with goody good research right from pregnancy and it can impact on the parents confidence and therefore the family whether they are single or otherwise. Not EVERY single parent on DPB is a child abuser and by firing them all into that dirty sickening heap is an abuse in itself and will bring a new set of problems as a by product of too much state interference.
I agree emphatically that something needs to be done and maybe monitoring is the way it has to be. I am just concerned that it will go too far and good parents are turned into criminals because their methods of parenting, which are not inherently bad in itself, do not 'fit in' with government standards, goody good research or expectations. Trina

*This should not stop at this should be for every child born into families where one is living with a partner and said child does not belong to both and also shoudl they receive a call of concern they ACT pronto and keep an eye on said place as there is NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE. MARYLIN

*It is the thin end of the wedge, as in " Big Brother is Watching". John

*The evidence is clear.Something must be done and quickly! Brian

*Bloody oath. Clark

*Child abuse is sickening and the only way to stop it is to stop paying unmarried girls to have babies that they dont want and cant love. Barbara

*The DPB must be urgently replaced with a system that does not heavily incentivise children to have children solo. Dominic

*Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to stop DPB benefits to girls under a certain age e.g 19. This would stop young girls seeing having a child as an alterntive to getting educated and employed. Pam

*Better not to have them born in the first place: free vasectomies and sterilization. Louise

*And bring back Plunket. Geoffrey

*How many young kids must die before somthing is done! John

*The welfare system is invaluable as a short-term support for mothers whose marriage has turned to custard, but as a life style it is well documented as harmful. There should be a 5 year limit for the DPB, which would allow fulltime parenting during those critical first 5 years of a child's life. But after that, it should be a supplement at best, as parents get back into the workforce. Susan

This week's poll asks:

Do you agree with the Coroner that there should be compulsory state intervention and monitoring oversight of the care of children living in single parent households where their parents are in receipt of a domestic purposes benefit?

*Any system that says "all" is immediately suspect. We do have mothers who have a short term need, go on DPB and then off again. These cannot be bundled in with the long terms DPB recipients. There always needs to be assessment. It s becoming very in vogue to not profile because profiling requires a decision and this leads to risk for the assessors. We have to focus on ALL the risk factors. This is like the Starship who supervise all injured babies for potential harm because they wont profile. Robyn

*According to the Coroner, the answer to all the failures of the current welfare systems, entitlemnet programmes and government interference is more of the same. Doesn't make sense to me. Doing the same things and expecting a different result is surely madness. Baxter

*Under 20 year olds should also have the ways they spend their "income" controlled, ie power, phone etc prepaid and a card only allowing certain "healthy" purchases at supermarkets etc. Ross

*No. The problem is horrific and must be addressed, but a sledgehammer approach which would unfairly target those who are good parents would just create needless resentment. And any such system would be open to abuse by over-zealous and poorly qualified "enforcers" There has to be a better version of the coroner's proposal that would work without causing unintended consequences. John

*Remove the abused child, place in a safe home, stop any benefits to mother and disqualify for any future benefits. These mothers are criminals and should not be supported by taxpayers to encourage more. Jill

*We also need to restore the concept of a normal family. IE biological mum, dad and siblings. Grahame

*Excessive state intervention. Targeted state intervention is required. Ron

*Better yet...let's eliminate the incentives (ie DPB) that encourage this random breeding that's essentially dumbing our population down to the lowest common denominator. Tony

*Women who live in this environment should be forced to have the contraception needle but instead we reward them to have more with no consequences, where is the learning in doing this. Peter

*This is not addressing the problem - subsidising solo parenting. Peter

*While it may SOUND like a good idea, it isn't. It's just big-brother socialism dressed up in another guise. The answer is not nurse-maiding the rebellious, hedonistic "unable to control their impulses" youth. The answer is to destroy our stupid socialist government and all the rubbish they've collectively (both the Nats & Labour) foisted on us over the last 40 years, abolish the benefits altogether, abolish the teaching of the theory of evolution (as it is most certainly only a theory, and then one easily disproved for those with half a brain), abolish the teaching of relativistic post-modern morality (or, more properly, immorality), and "re-make" NZ culture to the way it should be. And what does that look like? Instead of "the gummint" doing what they were never, ever supposed to do (micro-managing people's lives & life choices), it should be up to non-profit (or for-profit, as is appropriate) organisations that work within a general framework & set of guidelines, monitored by a volunteer non-government body. Next, we bring in policies where NZers are not shielded from the consequences of their actions. Girls and boys want to play the harlots and spread their wild oats? Fine - their families can support them.

If we got real, stopped being a bunch of socialist poofs, stopped coddling those whose behaviour is destructive and destroying the fabric of our society, we could see real change inside a decade. But it won't happen, because it suits the purposes of the UN and their globalist backers to have it this way: it makes us weak and easily controlled / lead. The time for revolution is now. Never mind the "Arab spring" - we are just as much crushed and oppressed by our wicked psudeo-dictatorships as "they" have been / are. Peter

*Will the politicians listen? I doubt it. There are no votes in taking the DPB off potential voters. Bernie

*I agree with every word written. Sandra

*Teenage women accessed as coming from the socio-economic background discussed in the article should have to accept compulsory contreception (5 year patch)before they get the benefit and also sign an agreement that should they become pregnant during this period that they waive all rights to the DPB. Mike

*This debilitating lifecycle must be broken as, left unattended, it will continue to spiral out of control untill we have chaos and anarchy in NZ. Rob

*Yes, and weekly Plunket visits should be reinstated. Don

*It never used to be necessary - given today's circumstances, it most certainly is now, but not so in all cases. It would be a problem deciding which cases are appropriate to investigate and monitor. Ron

This week's poll asks:

Do you agree with the Coroner that there should be compulsory state intervention and monitoring oversight of the care of children living in single parent households where their parents are in receipt of a domestic purposes benefit?

*It is taxpayer money therefore the Government should be able to control largely how it is spent. If the recipient doesn't like the conditions that come with the payment they can always decline to accept it. Yeah right. Adrian

*It is about time we acknowledged the problem instead of bending over backwards to be PC while young children are murdered by their "carers". Katherine

*And out an end to paying teenagers to have kids that they are not in a position to bring up. Kids need all of the attention and care and stability of two parents, not the instablity of inseciure young mothers or drug addicts. J

*Compulsory State intervention in any part of a person's life is the very thing that we should be avoiding at all costs. The very idea creates a high risk, in fact a certainty, of destroying many healthy families to save a few losers who shouldn't breed anyway. Kerry

*Yes, I do. It should be part and parcel of receiving the DPB. However, parenting courses, free contraception and budgeting advice should also be included. On top of that there should be no increase in benefit if any further children are born to a mother on the DPB. This would put a stop to the current practice of having more and more children to different fathers in many cases so as to get more money and have a further excuse not to get into fulltime work and off the benefit. B+H

*I know of a then 16 year old that had a child, ended up giving that child away, then getting knocked up again and having to give the second child away. At the first "conference" to decide what happened, my wife attended, the girl's breif, counsellor and someone from WINZ. Also present the then violent boyfriend, his breif, councillor and at least one cop.
After that meeting the boy stayed there while the next girl was sent in.
Ironically he wasn't the father of the first child.
There is a cost to the children in all this and also a cost to the taxpayer.
I also had to take leave from work to look after our kids while my wife attended the meeting.
The baby given up to a caring family is doing very well and is now I think eight. I have no idea of the others in this saga other than they have been mentioned in the court news. Bill

*I have seen Nia Glassie burial plot at Tokoroa cemetery. Poor wee Lass. Kelvin

*Definitely, and if they continue to breed with different fathers for each child in order to stay on the benefit, after say the 3rd child compulsory sterilization should occur. This would at least stop a number of unwanted and uncared for children being born. Allan

*Cut off the DPB after the 1st child. No more fundimg for the mother either. Ian

*Absolutely! Otherwise the cycle of stupidity, greed and laziness will always continue. Eugene

*Despite having to use the treat of compulsion there seems little option. The question then arises have we the elected and non-elected politicians who have the courage to deal with this problem?
Or as seems more likely apply a further cosmetic solution thus avoiding any embarrassment when they face the election.
Again overriding this problem will be the reaction from the ultra liberals to what Dr Bain proposes. The words will be Racist and Fascist, plus the usual addition from Maori.
Let us hope for these abused children that the government moves at once on this issue.
Hope springs eternal! Brian

*Getting a bit tired of the excuses though, there is a syndrome to blame for just about anything you do wrong, hell you can even blame looting on a syndrome now, the excuse that I beat my kid to death because I was beaten as a kid is a cop out, until people start being held accountable and the percentage of the welfare dollar spent on alcohol and drugs is reduced no change will come. John

*Wholeheartedly. It is probably the only chance for those children to make something of their life before they slide down the slippery slope to criminal behaviour themselves. EJ

*I live in the Philippines where unfortunately having large families is the norm. These people are as poor as hell but everyone of these children are loved and cared for. No free bloody money over here. Murray

*Yes indeed, and other benefits should be conditional on some positive effort by the recipients. Clive

*I think it's all too late. As a country we and perhaps the western world has been screwed by left wing socialists. Don

*Would any politician or political party in this country ever be (re) elected if they took strong action on this matter? No. We should just get used to it then shouldn't we. Graham

*Many single parents of my acquaintance, even in hardship look after their children excellently. Surely the one size fits all rule of intrusion and surveillance in single families' lives is contrary to liberal principles. Further, please present any data that shews that more than a very few single parent households are dysfunctional. I am engaged in "voluntary" social work, and the need of single parent families is for more money, not punitively less. The proposition of big brother intrusion will create yet another facet of an Orwellian bureaucratic state. And undoubtedly the people doing the monitoring will be odd and querelous and naysaying. Patently identifiably aberrant parents need early pinging, and they are nearly all readily recognisable, if society and government puts aside its politically correct avoidance of stereotyping. I can point out, as should anybody who sees the wider collection of dissonant styles, who the likely suspects are: general history of criminality, boozing, dope, hoodies ... The proposal to intrude into quiet responsible small families lives is offensive would be state harrassment, and result in bureaucratic bullying. Leo

*It required courageous monitors though, because those who miastreat their children are violent codgers. Eneka

*Stop paying children to have children and grow some balls and start prosecuting people for having under-age sex. Maybe help over 18's with baby number one but if they choose to go on and have more they should have to fend for themselves and stop burdening us tax payers. We need to wake up and smell the roses! There is more contraception info and free out there today and in your face , so why are we seeing so many teenage pregnancies...not rocket science...you get paid to have babies and the rest of society who work for a living and plan their families end up paying for all of them. Jaqckie

This week's poll asks:

Do you agree with the Coroner that there should be compulsory state intervention and monitoring oversight of the care of children living in single parent households where their parents are in receipt of a domestic purposes benefit?

*Absolutely! It is a disgrace that most children who are abused or killed have parents on the DPB and nothing has been done to sort it out since the benefit was introduced in the seventies! Sure, people have fiddled around the edges, but the do-gooders should just go for a walk around the welfare suburbs to see how bad it is. The kids growing up in many of those families have no hope as things stand. Beverley

*If parents on the DPB were monitored it would make it less desirable and all the free loaders who shouldn't be there might leave. I can't see any downsides at all. Ken

*I think it is appalling that so many kids have had to die before anyone bothers to do anything. Wendy

*All beneficiaries with children should be monitored to make sure their priority is spending their money on the children not on booze, drugs etc. And if they don't like it they should leave - they probably shouldn't be on welfare anyway! James

*Everything must be focussed on the safety of children. It is a scandal that so many kids go to school hungry these days. I know it's not easy to live on a benefit, but feeding the kids must the priority. And if it's not, these parents need urgent help. Andrew

*Teenage parents shouldn't get a benefit anyway! Pregnant teenagers are the responsibility of their parents. It's time that families took responsibility for their teenagers. Bruce

*Benefits should come with many strings attached. We've tried the "here's the money do what you want with it" and it's been a disaster. It is time for a different approach and the Coroner's suggestions sound pretty good. Michael