Thursday, 29 July 2010

“It's just dreadful what we have let develop under the guise of a 'caring, compassionate' welfare state.”

Another week, another child killed by a person who was supposed to be their guardian, another evasion of responsibility by those ultimately responsible for this savagery—i.e., the politicians paying no-hopers to have children they don’t want.

Lindsay Mitchell penned a superb letter to a talkback host who was calling for an end to this “free money,” more accurately called blood money.

_Quote Yesterday you called for an end to "free money." People rang in and said "enough is enough." Now the assaulted baby is another infant death statistic. The outpouring yesterday was a replay of the outrage we heard after the death of Lillybing and too many others. After that particular case I got mobilised and started up a petition calling for a parliamentary review into the DPB. I wrote to every newspaper , advertised, called talkback, knocked on doors, as did many others. What happened? We collected 1400 signatures. A hugely disappointing result. Time and time again people wrote to me that they were having difficulty getting others to sign because everybody knew somebody - a friend or family member - on the benefit. Or that they supported the DPB system. Personally it was a very difficult time with a good deal of the opposition to my petition getting nasty via threats and public ridicule. I have continued to do what I can through articles, submissions to select committee, standing for parliament twice and working in the community with needy families. My point is this Dan;
There is not enough political support to stop the "free money" and all of the devastation it visits on children. You will find no support for ending or substantially reforming the DPB from the Maori Party , Labour, the Greens or even National. In fact, the formation of the unofficial Welfare Working Group comprising Sue Bradford, the Child Poverty Action Group, academics and the mainstream churches is gearing up to fight for the status quo, or even higher benefit levels. Your listeners seem to want the sort of change you were advocating yesterday yet at election time they vote for parties that refuse to form policies that would see an end to the cash for babies programme.
It doesn't have to be the way it is in NZ. The only other countries that have DPB-like benefits are England, Ireland and Australia. Elsewhere support is temporary and conditional. In the US teenage mothers must stay at school to be eligible for financial assistance and they must live at home or in an adult supervised setting. Their teenage birthrate, which is high like New Zealand's, has been falling steadily along with the abortion rate and dare I say it, their child abuse and general crime rates. They have a long way to go but at least they are going in the right direction.
Meantime our politicians are too afraid to grab the bit between their teeth and do something decisive despite many knowing that the level of child abuse and neglect New Zealand is experiencing has everything to do with incentivised and casualised child-bearing. Because the state will provide on an indefinite and no-questions- asked basis, mothers are abandoned by or get rid of the fathers of their babies, and are then latched onto by new males who want sex and a roof over their head with no obligation to be a breadwinner. They do not make wonderful step-fathers. It's just dreadful what we have let develop under the guise of a 'caring, compassionate' welfare state.

Not a sea of tears nor a cavalcade of hand-wringing will stop the babies being killed.

Stop the blood money.

And stop voting for the politicians who pay it.


  1. Spot on! This is the number one issue facing NZ.
    What politician will stand up and expose this madness?

    The DPB should be restricted to the first child only...and then only till age 5... a second child on the DPB is just carelessness writ large...or a cynical farming of the taxpayers' naivety. Either way the country financially and socially can ill afford this toxic altruism ...originally set up to make the elites feel better.

    Dysgenics in action.


  2. Sorry, I kinda don't get it...this baby's death is due to New Zealand supporting it financially?
    Has the killer said anything along these lines, how do you come to this conclusion?
    If we had left the them to fend for themselves, how would it help protect the baby?

  3. Sean Fitzpatrick30 Jul 2010, 09:08:00

    Well did PJ O'Rourke describe the welfare state as the 'sow that eats her own young'.

  4. @ Anonymous: "... this baby's death is due to New Zealand supporting it financially?"

    Yes. This baby's death, and almost every other in recent years, is due to taxpayers paying children to have children they don't want.

    Keep paying no-hopers to breed, and you breed a culture of no hope.

  5. This issue as Lindsay writes has been debated many times after each atrocity inflicted on defenceless products of government funded breeding. The saddest fact is that this will be repeated again, and again...

    The issue is not money, money is a by-product. It is a lack of self-respect and self-responsibilty on the part of the mindless breeders who create these children.

    Chris R.

  6. "Yes. This baby's death, and almost every other in recent years, is due to taxpayers paying children to have children they don't want."

    So what about those children whom are abused and neglected by parents and family that aren't supported by the DPB?

  7. @Dylan: I suggest you check all the children killed by their parents in recent years. The correlation between death and DBP is very high.

    @ Chris R: The issue IS money. If you pay no-hopers to breed you shouldn't be surprised when they breed children to whom they give no hope.

  8. There was only one Virgin Mary, and it is pretty obvious she didn't come from New Zealand (I'll spell it out for you; Based on this post, it was because there wasn't a single, let alone three, wise men).

    How about getting stuck into the bludgers who talk big down the pub about their latest root, but won't stick around to do the manly thing ?

    How about getting stuck into the biological fathers who run scared at the first sign of responsibility, pissing off to Australia, with no concern about the future of their children, let alone the mother ?

    Did any of you actually know the child that you're calling a no-hoper ? Did any of you ask the mother if she wanted to be subjected to a life of abuse and poverty ?

    FWIW, My personal experience is that my sister's boyfriend left for Australia the day they found she was pregnant. Neither she nor her son have seen him since. Now the young fellah is an Electrical Engineer on large scale projects in Australia, and she is head of Auckland sales for a household name in insurance.

  9. "How about getting stuck into the biological fathers who run scared at the first sign of responsibility, pissing off to Australia, with no concern about the future of their children, let alone the mother ?"

    Pre-DPB much greater efforts were made to put responsibility on the fathers via the courts. Men went to jail for non-maintenance. But that has been watered down to the point where he only has to pay around $12 a week if on a low wage or benefit (which encourages him to stay there). That's it. I agree that his responsibility should ideally extend to much more. But not while the state puts up an incentive for females to produce children. Society has to go one way or the other. The state can't replace fathers on one hand and hold them fully responsible on the other.

    Your sister's experience is a sad one but probably best she found out what he was made of sooner rather than later.

  10. Unlike most of the DPB lifestylers, your sister wanted more for herself and her shild/ren, so refused to stay a prisoner to the welfare trap, if indeed she was ever one. Obviously she is not a no-hoper, and thus ingrained on her son a sense of worth which enabled him to become more than a welfare dependant, drug/booze/violence addled moron, which is where the no hoper dpb lifestylers routinely recruit their next root from. (How they feel the need to have a new 'partner' in the first 6 months of a baby's life is beyond me).

  11. It's hard to discuss individual circumstances without knowing details of the case, but presumably most adult women who have unprotected sex should be aware of the possible consequences. It seems pretty unlikely that the "boyfriend" had agreed to attempt to start a family, and then took off as soon as the inevitable happened, and it's morally repugnant that other people are consequently forced to pay for people's ill considered choices.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.