New Zealand Conservative

It doesn't take much to trigger vocal, full-on hatred of children and mothers given the right subject matter. In this case, it was directed against a woman who is the mother of six children with two on the way (expecting twins), who lives in a state house with her husband, and who would like a bigger state house for her expanding family. Que outrage that any woman who has a state house would dare to have give birth to any more children. Except, what is she supposed to do with the buns in the oven - abort them? Should she be like this mother , who decided to write a letter to the editor justifying her abortion of her third child because he or she didn't suit their lifestyle? We certainly have a problem in New Zealand, and it's not women having children. The problem is our much too generous welfare system, the lack of jobs for low skilled men, and the high cost of living that means that if a family wants to have a better living that mere subsistence, both parents ne...

This will tickle the fancy of hard core National Supporters: New work rules for sole parents The devil is in the details of course New laws requiring beneficiaries with children to look for work will be introduced next month. If work can't be found despite look ing what then, my friends, what then? This is a structural and cultural problem. The solution does not lie in reforming the welfare system and never will. These efforts are just window dressing - which may at most inflict hardship on a few, to the joy no doubt of the usual suspects if they hear about it, but do not a thing to address the real underlying problems. But the Government has neither the will nor the nous to really address what needs to be addressed. Which is sad.

There are a lot of areas to discuss when talking about building a more equitable system. And when I say equitable, I don't mean equal, I mean "just". So my opening assumption is that the system isn't just. There are weaknesses and discrepancies. There are things that the market doesn't necessarily "correct" itself for in a way that is good for the people of NZ as a whole, especially as we are but a small part of an increasingly globalised economy. My first topic for 2012 is a musing about Corporate Welfare and Corporate Contribution to the NZ Economy. Whilst such figures as I'm about to discuss might be on the balance sheets somewhere, I'm interested in a quick way of understanding what the key figures are. I'm looking to understand: How much net GST did they pass on to the Government? How much corporate income tax did they pay in their last complete financial year? What their total average income tax payments have been since in...

How many know what an impact the Reformation had on the way the poor were looked after? It occurred to me while on my retreat that the modern welfare system could learn a lot from the abbeys. Until the Reformation, the monastery offered alms to the poor and somewhere for people fleeing tyranny to hide. Post Reformation, the safety net was undone and people threw themselves on the charity of the local lay community. With the coming of the industrial era, the state started to take up the burden of poor relief. Related link: The modern welfare state could learn a lot from the Medieval monastery ~ Timothy Stanley, History and Politics

Some people live in a world of their own. Critics have labelled Creative New Zealand "anti-Auckland" after it failed to award funding to a project highlighting the work of some of the city's most important artists. The body declined an application for $29,000 to continue the "Cultural Icons" project, dismaying its backers, and earning the wrath of the arts community in city. Art critic and writer Hamish Keith said: "I do know that there is an attitude in Creative New Zealand that this is an Auckland initiative and they can't be bothered with it." What this all means is no more dosh from creative New Zealand to fund this . So Auckland's Iconic people will just have to find someone else to pay for their vanity website. I'm sure they will.

So, National is going to attempt to change behaviour through getting tougher on mothers who raise children without a husband and receive the DPB from the State. We have a Pandora's Box situation here - all the miseries have already escaped and have been inflicting themselves upon the New Zealand population for a very long time now. Rather than encouraging us to try and build up our resistance to these scourges of mankind, National instead are trying to use money to negotiate with the evils. Like that will work. The evils of social liberal policies have all but destroyed the notion of leaving sex to when you are married and instead encourage sexual libertinism with all and sundry as long as contraception is used.  They have changed women's primary roles from mothers to workers which has ensured that the numbers of children being produced over all has reduced and that women leave the care of their children to others. I mean, what family today who are working can afford...

Today's Dominion Post Idiotorial on child abuse shows very clearly why editors prefer to hide behind total anonymity. "One idea that should be explored is mandatory reporting...even though there is a risk that good parents are falsely accused...even though there is a risk abusers will not seek medical help for their victims to prevent being caught.." Before we dissect this Orwellian directive let's pause for the obligatory inversion of moral principles: "New Zealanders need to accept that it is better for 10 good parents to come under scrutiny than for one monster to be allowed to continue inflicting the worst cruelty" Aside from the rush to embrace the modern principles of political correctness before justice, the casualness of the use of the word "scrutiny" is the thing to note here. Because "scrutiny" means an army of social workers arriving on the doorstep to accuse good parents of being very good at hiding their presumed ev...

There was an article I read a week or so ago about Paula Bennett suggesting Iwi should step in and help out where children were removed from homes of Maori parents that were not able to be good parents. Given that Maori child abuse statistics are disproportionally high, and that Maori view things through a perspective of race, and that whanua and iwi are defining characteristics of their social make-up, this all makes perfect sense. Imagine my surprise then when some Maori spokesperson in the article rejected the idea out of hand, saying it's up to the cold hand of government to care for these kids.

Prime Minister John Key and Whanau Ora Minister Tariana Turia Thursday announced $134m in spending on the programme over the next four years , drawn from the Government’s $1.2b Pathway To Partnership fund. The programme seeks to appoint whanau ‘navigators’ to monitor up to twenty families each and liaise with health and welfare providers for them...The $134m would be a starting point and would not include funding for existing contracts. Turia added that figure would rise over time to a value of $1b as Housing, Justice and police agencies are integrated. $134 million for 20 families? I wonder how the 20 families were selected? Was it last week's Lotto draw, a scratchie or every-one who had $100 to win on "Whar Lap" on the 4th race last Tuesday at Trentham? Turia says it's not about the money. That's because it's not hers, and tax is a bottomless bucket. I hope that $134 million includes some very detailed reporting on where the money went, and w...

While a foolish man builds his on sand and expects the authorities to protect it .

I can't believe this woman . She has paid for this billboard to be erected  after having been involved in a dispute with the Ministry of Social Development for eight years over her benefit entitlements. Well she sure doesn't look poor to me and whatever misfortunes have befallen her she still has the resources at her disposal to pull this stunt. But what seriously annoys me over all of this is the way it will be used to hammer those in our community who face real hardship and deprivation - sometimes through their own fault, perhaps, but all to frequently not. The Ministry of Social Development pays plenty of New Zealanders to sit on their butts. It pays its butt sitting CEO $539,000 while he upholds policy that drives hard grafting Kiwis into bankruptcy. I was the hapless recipient of their endevours. Toot to show your contempt. Trinette Hawse My question is - is this woman so self absorbed that she cannot grasp that her actions only serve to demonstrate the lack of merit in ...

Danyl, at The DimPost offers an enticing conspiracy theory for us this holiday season: On the matter of the Sunday Star Times uncovering a story about a beneficiary taking the government to court because his benefit was not enough to purchase a particular pair of new shoes ($140) and a nice jersey ($49.95): I’m not sure, but I suspect this story was bought to the attention of the SST by Paula Bennett’s office as part of the Ministers ongoing propaganda war against the welfare system. More overt was this pre-Christmas story by Colin Espiner about the extensive benefits received by a Christchurch family. Update: And a third story emerges . Is Paula Bennett's office doing overtime or are assistant editors staging a revolution whilst their bosses are on holiday? Danyl notes: The other big problem with the welfare-bludger stories is the lack of balance. and on this I agree, and perhaps as much for the principle as the detail. I said on his blog:

Beneficiaries think they are entitled to free education, and the reasoning is sound. However, given everyone else (including full time students) often have to take loans out to pay for their courses, why treat beneficiaries differently? When they get a job, they can pay the loan back, just like students. Current benefits or WFF credits often top up a low wage, so am I missing something here? Speaking of entitlements, Sir Roger, Phil Goff and now Bill English are on the firing line for taking what they are entitled to receive. That in fact is their justification. It would make sense to the man on the street, if it weren't for the fact that politicans pass legislation to create these entitlements in the first place. I can't think of many jobs with ongoing perks when you stop working. Who else keeps paying your expenses and treating you like you still work there, without having to actually punch the clock? That's the bit these politicians are missing. The solution is fa...

Lindsay Mitchell has the latest (published) figures from MSD around welfare payments. It's always interesting to look at where around a third of Government expenditure goes. However, what caught my eye was this: There was a big annual increase in invalid benefit grants (36 percent) and psychological and psychiatric conditions continue to trend up with both invalid and sickness grants. Nearly all of the growth in sickness grants was due to psychological/psychiatric disorders and substance abuse. 36% increase seems an extraordinary leap. Still, perhaps politicians were worried there would be 100% leap if the Green's medical marijuana bill made it through parliament? It was voted down citing that the bill was "too flawed". Based on some of the bills going through recently (s59, EFB, ETS for example), it probably was. Lindsay Mitchell: MSD releases "latest" figures (to June 30 2008)

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State" . This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. By inter...