Our aim is to be your guide to living life to the full. The keys to staying vital and active for longer are within our grasp! Read more...
Become a GrownUp and join our Community. Stay up to date with our weekly newsletter, discuss topics with other members, grab some great member-only offers and so much more.
Select the radio station you would like to listen to live.
Member since 26 Nov 2006
Member from Dobson
"Chris, it proved only that Coral-Ellen Burrows was failed. It does not prove that every child is failed, or might be failed, in situations that superficially might look similar to hers."
Every child who ends up either dead or in Starship Hospital following abuse has been failed.
Member since 02 Feb 2007
Member from Mangere Central
Program on the Strongman Mine Tonight.Best burning Coal ever.OKK.[sorry for going off Topic]
Member since 23 Nov 2009
Member from Stratford
Could we not also say that Greg Meads failed his children too?
Please, don't misunderstand. I'm not saying these children have not been failed by every adult and every system that should have protected them. I'm saying they are the ones the media choose to highlight for reasons we can only speculate about but there are other children being abused every day in homes the length and breadth of NZ in all strata of society.
To select a small and particular group to target punishment and assistance at while virtually ignoring the other groups that would qualify just as well, except that they are financially self-supporting is just plain wrong.
And where are the deadbeat dads in all this? Why are we not going after the runaways who have left their families dependent on the state in the first place - thousands of them refusing to take responsibility, to contribute to their children's support? Why are we targeting the mothers and letting the fathers get away with what is surely a major causative factor to the situation?
Member since 02 Nov 2006
Member from Linwood
Will it get any better, arander when the freedom from any responsibility is the lot by law in todays world. Criminals are becoming younger every day and can be as vulgar and violent as any adults.
How much hardship and poverty is caused by bad management and indulgence in the dummies the adults need to get them through each day.
We never hear of the families on benefits and low wages who will find part time work to help out or the kids doinf paper rounds and odd jobs no matter how small the pay is.
There are a lot who get by but it is not easy. It is better than becoming a beggar though, surely.
Children as young as 10 can be charged, and are Bailey Kurariki is an extreme example, for serious crimes. The 14yo who stole his father's new truck this weekend could face court.
We will never hear of the youngsters who get charged, get sorted, and fly right from then on. We will only hear of the failures. If it bleeds it leads, Joybel, and there's no advertising dollars in good news.
Joybel, you say 'we never hear' ^^ of families on benefits and low wages who will find part time work. You are absolutely right.
There was a very interesting followup interview on the TV, can't remember whether it was Campbell Live or CloseUP, report from Huntly which talked to several young parents without work. In the followup, the interviewer was asked why they only spoke to young Maori parents. We didn't, he replied, we spoke to 50/50 Maori and European young parents. Well, why were the only young people shown 100% Maori? Oh, that's the Art Department's decision, he said.
So ask yourself why? What were we viewers meant to think, to take from that? That only young Maori in Huntly are single parents? Obviously.
This from the same report I posted several pages back: - "Many of these women are caring for children alone because of a marriage breakdown, which is rarely a lifestyle choice. They have not only borne the opportunity cost of foregoing career opportunities to raise a family but are also now doing the bulk of the parenting alone and – if one can believe the child support payment figures – very often without the financial support that is due to them. Even so, more DPB recipients are engaged in part-time work (16%) than those on the dole. Far from being left at home to look after their children in ways that low income workers cannot, people on the DPB have since last September, faced a regime of work teasing..."
I personally know of several low earning families, (one very close to me, in fact, which is working two low paid 30 hour full time jobs and one part-time plus raising two little children) who work at several jobs and have several income streams. Oh and pay 2ndary tax too which is another injustice.
Something else has changed. The 'nature of work' has changed from our day. Many of these families are doing low paid jobs, let's say rest home care-giving. They are only contracted to work less than 30 hours. That makes them part-timers, despite the fact that they regularly work much longer hours. They are often (always) on individual contracts - they are part-timers, so they get their holiday pay and so on paid out weekly. In other words, they don't get the advantages of being full time permanents, they are casualised, on call, low paid, but have to be available at short notice to work when required. Which also, of course, makes being able to take on other work difficult because they can't plan.
So, then, we need to ask ourselves why do we not hear of these families?
If we did, and we thought, Hey, that's not fair - don't you think the pressure would be increased to raise the pay and conditions of workers like them? To the disadvantage of the employers? Which are almost all large foreign corporations? As is our media from which comes our news and current affairs and information of every sort?
Having a job as a reporter must be somewhat disapointing when the editor takes a knife to ones story and destroys the truth. My son paid child maintenance for two children for years. However, the family never received the amount he was paying, but the amount the Govt. set. The rest goes into maintaining the office workers, I imagine.
What a wonderful mum they have. She did partime work like cleaning and garden nursery jobs. I loved her clothes which were from opshops and she could put together some great original combinations. Being slim helped of course. Her two are grownup now and one has a degree and found work in her design field while the younger one will work casually this year and go to Uni.
Mum also went to Uni and graduated. She is now working in early childhood. She has a very supportive family but they are not moneybags, working folk like the majority. I am very proud of her and her family.
Member since 28 Oct 2006
Member from Eltham
There are a couple of things I want to comment on, first Post #84: "I don't think so. I think this is much more about punishing women who have a child while on benefit either for (obviously) having sex out of marriage or for then needing a little more taxpayer support for a little longer or both."
Seems to me there are two kinds of Mothers & Fathers on the DPB.
The first are the "Run-offs" where mum or dad is left holding the baby. These people (both sex's) need sympathy and support. having one in my own family I know the problems not just financial but emotional as well. If you have any idea how hard it can be getting these bums (the liable parent) to pay child support then double it because it can wear you into the ground chasing them for a few bucks and NO the legal system is not much help either.
Second there are the "Mistakes" for want of a better word. The mothers who for what ever reason "fell" pregnant by mistake. Let's face it "Mistakes" happen to us all but this mistake lasts the child's lifetime and what ever else happens it falls to Mum to do her best. I know it can be hard chasing down the Dad but it must be a requirement right through to DNA testing if necessary so the Fathers carry their responsibility too. BTW I think that everyone can make a "Mistake" but twice is absolute stupidity. So there should be conditions attached in cases like this.
Now one more thing, these "Liable Parents" should not be allowed to run off and shirk their responsibilities. Neither should others that owe the "State" money like student loans. They should be stopped at the border and not aloud to leave the country until suitable arrangements are made and in the case of those that have the Government should employ Debt Collectors on a contract basis with a "No Result, No Pay" clause. I'll bet you a quid to a lump of the preverbal that that would bring in some money!
C&P Make your own mind up in considering the accusation on this topic. But why pick on the women?
Countries from Most to Least Promiscuous (based on Table 3 in Schmitt):
Country Score Country Score Country Score
1. Finland 50.5 17. Switzerland 39.13 33. Belgium 32.82
2. New Zealand 47.69 18. Fiji 38.58 34. Congo, D.R. 32.43
3. Slovenia 46.26 19. Brazil 37.93 35. Greece 32.38
4. Lithuania 46.1 20. Czech Rep. 37.52 36. Ukraine 32.27
5. Austria 45.73 21. Australia 37.29 37. Romania 32.1
6. Latvia 43.93 22. United States 37.05 38. Malta 31.27
7. Croatia 42.98 23. France 36.67 39. Slovakia 29.55
8. Israel 40.95 24. Turkey 36.06 40. Lebanon 28.57
9. Bolivia 40.9 25. Mexico 35.69 41. Botswana 27.02
10. Argentina 40.74 26. Peru 34.59 42. Ethiopia 26.55
11. United Kingdom 40.17 27. Portugal 34.59 43. Japan 24.1
12. Estonia 39.95 28. Canada 34.52 44. Hong Kong 22.9
13. Germany 39.68 29. Italy 34.37 45. Zimbabwe 22.66
14. Netherlands 39.34 30. Poland 34.21 46. South Korea 22.21
15. Morocco 39.31 31. Serbia 34.21 47. Bangladesh 19.67
16. Philippines 39.31 32. Spain 33.72 48. Taiwan 19.22
As an economist, I can’t help but wonder if some of the variation in promiscuity between nations has to do with income. I decided to see, although this is not an empirical test, whether there is a correlation between promiscuity and income.
Using GDP per capita**, I ranked the 48 countries in the survey by income per capital and found that the average promiscuity measure for the ten poorest countries was 32 while the average measure for the top 10 was 39. While there are notable exceptions of rich countries with low promiscuity (Belgium) and poor countries with high promiscuity (Bolivia), it appears that the richer countries are more promiscuous on average than poorer countries.
So why might there be a correlation between wealth and "sociosexuality"? It might simply be the case that promiscuity is a luxury that is affordable to more people in richer nations. After all, in poor living conditions, you might have other things to occupy you than seeking multiple sexual partners."
Gerry Brownlee made disparaging remarks about Finland a while ago and received egg on his face. However,this article has Kiws as bedmates when it comes to promiscuity
Member since 29 Jun 2006
Member from Shirley
"This is a health matter. This is not a welfare matter. The two should not be bound together - that's coercion and might as well be compulsion.
Education is the answer to both concerns; free immolation for all children, free long-term contraception for all women IMO. "
Yes indeed,the implications of this are frightening. Who is to say what some future politician might make a 'requirement' if this precedent is set.
Rather than authoritarian & punitive moves,govt should instead be investing in education.
"Gee BD...I was a solo mother for 4 years and I didnt even know any TOM, DICK or HARRY"
Jeez SF - you're clearly letting the side down badly - get back out there immediately & start fulfilling the stereotype!
"OKK said, she doesn't want to pay for them. Seriously, OKK, what if one of those young women said, she doesn't want to pay for your pension?"
Indeed. The point being missed here is that its the CHILDREN of these much maligned women who will in the future,be paying for pensions & working in rest homes helping the very people now dismissing their mothers as unfit & somehow unworthy.
I wonder how these children will feel,when one of their charges starts holding forth on 'those disgraceful solo mothers,who are busily bonking every Tom,Dick & Harry?'
"Every child who ends up either dead or in Starship Hospital following abuse has been failed. "
True OKK. Also true that not every child in that situation is the child of a solo mother.
Chris,can you really not see ANY cruelty in removing a baby from its mother for forced adoption?
"So ask yourself why? What were we viewers meant to think, to take from that? That only young Maori in Huntly are single parents? Obviously."
I think that's the idea Arandar - & by the same token,we are only ever told of solo parents who get into strife of one kind or another, & never about the majority who do not.
One might almost believe that we're deliberately conditioned to think of Maori & solo parents (but only female solo parents) as being 'other.'
"BTW I think that everyone can make a "Mistake" but twice is absolute stupidity."
That's usually true Bryan,but there are also some women who have huge problems with contraception,too. And there is no 100% safe & effective contraceptive.
I'd pretty much agree with you Bryan. Parents who part can make their own payment arrangements and do not have to involve the state or the tax payer and many/most do that.
Joybel the money collected in child support is distributed to the parents of children left unsupported by liable runaways as well as admin. if more runaways met their responsibilities more money would go to more children.
Bryan's right. Nab em at the border and hold em until they pay their arrears and set up proper arrangements for the future.
"Bryan's right. Nab em at the border and hold em until they pay their arrears and set up proper arrangements for the future."
Not only nab em at the border! GO AFTER then where ever they go with "Contract" debt collectors! These collectors get their money! And keep at them until they do!
It's amazing what lengths they will go to to avoid paying child support.
Includes being self-employed and 'earning' nothing - you know, running the business at a loss, includes having everything in the second wife's name, includes family trusts - you name it, the onshore runaways will do it.
One guy I dealt with a few years ago now had a business, an enormous house, a boat and a helicopter (for his business) (oh and a smart accountant!) but he earned virtually nothing and paid minimal child support for the first family of three kids he'd left for the new love and children whose mother depended on the DPB for support for her and the kids... and boy, was he filthy about the constant demands of the old wife for a more equitable deal for those first children. She reckoned she'd given him his start in his business life, gave up her career and future earning prospects to support his, and their kids were missing out on everything his second family was getting.
To post a comment on this discussion please log in or register