the current system encourages "solo" mothers to have a string of children with one or more fathers so that they can remain solo "mothers". INHO these people should be put in a camp and worked to death for ripping off every other kiwi, but the nice side of me thinks this 1 year clause is very very good.

If you are on a benefit and are worried about how your going to work when that child is one is going to effect them, then don't have another child! Either form a stable relationship with a partner who will support you or wait until you have the means to support a child and stay home. This doesn't mean that you can never have more children, it just means that you take responsibilty, plan your life and postpone such a huge responsibilty until you can afford it. Babies don't happen out of the blue. A decision is made 9 months earlier to either make a baby or chance making a baby. Before you make that decision, stop and think how you will deal with the consequences of a baby you can't afford. There are plenty of low-cost contraceptive options available before you even get to that point. And I am not talking about women only. Men need to step up and take responsibility for the children they father or could potentially father. I have heard some nasty people suggest that beneficiaries be sterilised, this is a nazi-ish thing to suggest as it implies that beneficiaries are somehow a different breed from working or independently wealthy people. Most adults will at some time be on a benefit, so it is wrong to talk about this argument as an 'us and them' situation. Also, sterilisation is permanent, being on a benefit is not necessarily so. I wouldn't want to think that the four months I spent on the dole after leaving university would mean that I could never have children. But nor would I have had a baby at that time; it is hard enough being poor, without deliberately inflicting that on a child; I didn't even have a cat because I didn't want to chance vet bills I couldn't afford.

"There is a wealth of research that children who grow up in households where no adults are in paid employment do far worse than other children in other families - even those of the same income level"

Blatant disregard for correlation/causation there, man! That's obvious given that there are a higher concentration in that group of parents unmotivated to work which would reflect on their children.

That aside, not everyone on this benefit is a 'dole bludger' and this policy is blatant made is hit hard on dole-bludgers. This is going to punish legitimate parents that need support.

Yes having another child while you're on the DPB is irresponsible, but it's a human-right to have a child, I don't think it's our descision on who can and can't have a child, that's moving towards china teritory. Some will say 'I don't care if they have more children but they have to suffer the consequences if they do', and I would disagree on that; unless you some people in New Zealand to start living in poverty, which is never good for any society, it just leads to more crime and general problems.

The mandatory school age is six.

Should be mandatory for fathers name to be supplied before a benefit is granted and these people pursued for contribution until child is working.

I think that 12 months is the best idea. That gives parents the first year at home with their children and then they should seek employment, as mothers on parental leave have to return to work. I think that some consequences for actions are well overdue. If you are on the dpb then you do not have a partner, if you CHOOSE, because it is a choice, to have more children then you shouldnt be rewarded for that. In my community I know people that have more children for the simple fact that they are then allowed to stay at home for longer and they get a 'payrise'. This has to stop!

The term should be less. Work testing should be conducted 3 monthly. I agree that whilst on the DBP and having another child should not be rewarded with further entitlements. Something needs to be done to stop the career beneficiaries. There is work out there. People just need to want to work and do the jobs.

You've got the whole argument wrong! Provide 351,000 jobs now, not in 4 years or 3 years. Then you'll see who really needs the help/assistance of these punitive measures. Or build more prisons at $280,000 million each and then pay Serco another $91,000 a year for a bed? Simple really if you put aside the hill-billy rhetoric.

There arec several "incentives" in the system that can encourage another child - payments go up and short term this is a cah gain it also advoids the various tests proposed. solutions - dont pay for the next child (i do support an increase in payment for the first) Pay a Xmas bonus if you dont have an extra child - you could also incentivise work with a similar bonus scheme.

there are also possibilities to directly target the childs welfare - school meals after school activities etc. (paid for by reducing the amount paid to parents.

I absolutely agree with the new policy - women should not have another child while they are being supported by the taxpayer. 12 months seems appropriate, giving the mother important early bonding time with the child.