So noone wants to mention?

Hi Emz!
I'm on the fence. I'd like to entirely agree agree with you on the luxury for staying at home thing, but then I've just been doing this parenting course, and I can't help but wonder if some of the single mums are better at home, if they genuinely use that time to manage the household and prepare fun activities etc for the kids, rather than stress and freak out at work, when there is no other parent to carry the burden and the kids wear it all, effecting their own stability, emotional health and wellbeing etc, making it easier to create well balanced kids.

Of course it would be better for the mums self esteem to be finacially independant....it's a tricky one.

What really got MY goat, is the way they keep talking about the single mums....there are single dads on the DPB too!!!!

edited to add: WIth that last comment, it's not just the fact they mention the single mums and not the dads, its how much they place on the sterotypical dbp people, and how demeaning the releases of such policies in the media can be. Not the policies themselves as such, just the way they introduce them.

Does that make sense? Probably not

Edited by Flake

Dead right there. I know someone whos hobbies are listed as watching telly and then kids on fb. No other work, hobbies, or interests. I know them well enough to know they aren't working either, but I'm sure she's not going to stop at 6 kids.

As you said though, then you get the people who would be so lost without the help. I guess the genuine cases won't need this bill, they'd be doing it anyway.

i think its a good idea i mean 15hrs is only 3hrs a day while they are at school and only half the school day.
im not on dpb and never have been. i do know what they mean about the skills part, i had my oldest when i was 17 only skills i have is to work with horses, but thats not the kind of work i want to be doing now that i have kids, id be happy with a job at the warehouse checkouts if it means a job once my kids are at school. i want to do midwifery but also something ill have to wait til they are all in school b4 i can do.
also skills can be gained b4 they go to school, i am going to be doing my ncea etc through corospondence(sp) once my older 2 are both in school right now with a 9wk old and 3 preschoolers i bearly have time to eat.

Well I'm in agreement with it. I don't think it is that much to ask someone to be looking for/be in employment for 15 hours or to be studying for 15 hours, which was the other option instead of working.

I really think they have nothing to complain about and most women who are married or in a relationship can't stay home even before their kids are 6 so why should single parents get to stay at home for 18 years whilst other mums pay tax for them to do so.

As for taking the money off them if they are that irresponsible then perhaps cyfs should get involved anyway.

I have no issue with them coming down hard on the other beneficiaries either, the free ride is over and about time. It's not like NZ is the first place to implement these types of conditions, in the UK you have compulsory training programmes and also have to prove you are actively seeking work, you are also put on a different benefit when first on the dole which I believes pays more money than those on the dole long term so as not to punish those people who lose a job through no fault of their own and are then trying to find another one.

I don't see why solo parent's can't be expected to start looking for work once their youngest is 3, the whole point of 20 hours free early child care is to encourage parents back to work.

I do get the impression though that most people on the benefit don't actually want to be there and would rather be working.
I think those abusing the system are very much in the minority.

Jobs are pretty scarce at the moment, not entirely sure where Paula Bennett expects these 15 hour a week jobs to come from.

Given that the tertiary sector is tightening up on enrollments, and courses this isn't an option for everyone.  This also leaves beneficiaries of the added debt of a student loan.  There is never any guarantees that there will be jobs when people graduate.

In fact atm graduates are the ones suffering most from the recession and lack of available jobs, solo parents can't up and move their entire family to Oz in pursuit of employment in the same way a single person can.

No one has yet explained where they're supposed to get these 15 hour a week jobs from? 
Or how exactly they're going to police the 'looking' for work.

Edited by caliandjack

As it is, people on benefits (not so much the dpb, but I know from awhile back when I was on a regular benefit) sign contracts that they will actively search for work - yet they never seemed to spend a lot of time checking up on that. If they don't police it currently, I can't imagine them policing those on the dpb any more effectively, it's a lot of work to constantly be checking up, and easy enough for most people to fob it off with excuses. I'm not sure those working at WINZ get paid enough to do the job effectively!

I'm all for people bettering themselves, and think encouraging people to work/train for work when their children are 6 is a good idea, though most of the single mothers I know who actually want to work DO work, even when its way more stressful and doesn't net them a whole lot more $$ in the pocket than staying at home would. As a parent in general, even not a solo parent, it can be very hard to get a job tho - I worked my ass off trying to find somewhere, anywhere that would employ me when I finished studying full time but no-one would take me, mostly because I had a small child and hadn't had any recent experience (ie: studying for the last three years/raising a child equated to 'doing nothing' in most employers eyes). I couldn't even get a job in a supermarket or fast food place. Finding work can be really tough, but as long as those who are actually trying don't get penalized, and those who aren't get some encouragement and motivation then it's all good.

As someone said before, it would suck if young children were being put into even worse circumstances due to their parents choices or lack of motivation.

i think benefits definetly have a place in our society...but i have always thought that they should be payed differently.
all essentials ONLY are payed for.
rent, food stamps, power bills and the few other essentials are covered..thus making sure the money is spent on what it should be

yeah sure, many would complain..but the reality is, the essentials are covered and if they are in need of 'extra' spending money they can then do part time work to earn their own money for crap like...smokes, alcohol...etc.
at least the rent is paid, the power is on and kids have food in the cupboards.

what do you guys think?

I'm not sure where all these jobs are going to come from .. even cleaning jobs are done outside of normal work hours (as I can imagine people wanting people vacuuming around them while they are trying to work) so then who is going to look after the children while these people are cleaning at night?

Also funding for education has decreased dramatically so I doubt these people are going to get into studying either and I dont know any courses that are only 15 hours a week.

I think in theory its a good idea .. I just dont see it working "in the real world"

How are people going to pay for study if they're on a benefit? I can see the government tightening up further on who can get student loans, its hard enough managing that debt when your able bodied and willing to work.

I would like the focus to be put on the long term unemployed and possibly sickness beneficiaries, before those on the DPB are targeted.
In the end solo parents are doing a job they're raising their kids. Many without any government assistance either.

IMO I think those milking the system are the exception, most people I know on the benefit don't want to be there, but they'd be worse of financially if they took on part-time work, there doesn't seem a lot of incentive for them to be looking for work.