‘Sick and stupid attitude’

Sad but not surprising to see this responses like this to the issue Anne Tolley raised about people having babies in at risk situations from Anthony Robins at The Standard:

Nats and reproductive rights

The Nats are obsessed with the reproductive rights of those they deem “unfit”. Once again they are floating the idea of compulsory controls.

Are we still “not quite” at the stage of compulsion, or are the Nats going to cross that line? It’s obvious from their record that they have a thoroughly unhealthy obsession with the idea.

Why not make the very difficult issue of at risk children another political shit fight Anthony.

John Key “thinks” (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that parents on the DPB are “breeding for a business”. That kind of sick and stupid attitude can never be allowed to control reproductive rights.

That’s a link to a 2008 news report that says:

He has criticised Labour for its DPB policy, saying in 2002 that it had led to the situation “where people have been, for want of a better term, breeding for a business” – a statement Labour has since used against him.

Still using it against him over a decade later.

Talking of stupid attitudes Anthony, where are Labour’s solutions? That’s right, policy is next year’s project, trying to trash anything Key or the Government does or raises is this year’s strategy.

CYF has failed to adequately address the issue of large numbers of children being born into and living in high risk situations for several decades. Past Governments as well as the present Government have failed to make major improvements.

This deserves a serious discussion. At risk kids shouldn’t be used as a petty political football.

One thing that should be considered is whether any children are born as a result of perceptions of financial incentives by parents at high risk of harming their children (or putting them in situations where harm is likely).

The DPB is essential assistance for many mothers but that doesn’t rule out some misguided choices by mothers (and fathers) who are at risk of being poor parents.

But is the DPB a lifestyle choice for some? It is a question that shouldn’t be swept under a political rug.

Shitty political bitching, or prepared to look at some very difficult issues around children who have poor parents and crappy and high risk lives Anthony?

Leave a comment


  1. kittycatkin

     /  28th September 2015

    From what I gather, it is indeed a lifestyle for a small number, though even a small number is too large. The advice by that budget advisor-that women should pop one out every 18 months or so, to keep the income coming-was so stupid and irresponsible that I think that she should have been sacked.

    I know of three young women who had (at last count) 14 children between them by mostly different men. One was from a ‘good’ family; middle-class,business, professional. She is as intelligent as her two sisters and could have had a career as they have, but she chose-and I use the word advisedly-to be a career DPB claimant. I know the family and taught this girl. She did end up working part-time in a local paintshop eventually, but she could be so much more. The DPB was never intended to be a license to make a living from having endless babies, but good luck to anyone trying to turn that tide back.

    To be fair, though, the average stay on it is surprisingly short-but I can’t remember what it is ! And as there are those who are on it for years, this average, like others, can be meaningless.

    One young divorcee, the daughter of a friend, has three children by her ex and three more by her partner (while she was on the DPB & could well still be on it) She was at one time living in a lovely house on Lake Rotoiti where she had a boat and the children all had little motorbikes as soon as they were old enough. Her car was a large new SUV.

  2. kittycatkin

     /  28th September 2015

    I don’t know what CYFS can do, I must say. Once the at risk children are there, they can’t be put back, and there’s not a lot that they can do until something happens. It must be a soul-destroying business.

  3. Mike C

     /  28th September 2015

    Once a baby gets popped out, you cannot shove it back up there again, and that little person is here for life.

    If part of the solving of the awful problem of neglectful abusive parents involves offering them some sort of financial incentive not to breed anymore, and stop bringing children into a shocking family home environment, then I am all for it 🙂

    To my way of thinking, by preventing bad parents from breeding, that is like having a fence at the top of the cliff … rather than the expensive ambulance and the hospital and CYFS costs, and battered or dead children at the bottom of the cliff.

  4. Daryl Silcock

     /  7th October 2015

    Had there been something – anything!! implemented earlier, the following would never have happened – this family on a benefit has 8 children – all removed from the home by cyfs, all supported by tax payer $. This poor child is permanently brain damaged now because it’s parents CHOSE not to get medical help for over 2 days so the mother who caused it would not get an assault charge. I profoundly agree with Anne Tolley and stuff all the political correctness bullshit – NZ cannot sustain this worsening situation of people pumping out children when they cannot look after the ones they’ve got, neglecting or abusing them and still thinking they have a right to benefits etc and expecting the public to pay for them!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s