Winston Peters: Childhood can be dog's life

It is a fact that, out of the ruins of World War II, a number of western economies constructed for their people economic and social advances hitherto unmatched in history.
Those advances contributed more to the collapse of the old Soviet Union than anything else.
The downtrodden of Eastern European communist regimes had only to look over the border to know that their system was not working, and never would. Meanwhile neighbouring democracies seemed to be establishing, in comparison, heaven on earth.
Part of that amazing post-war period was of course the welfare state which this column covered last week.
It concluded that welfarism was losing its rightful dignity, that key elements were being corroded by abuse. It called for a Life Register to ensure that unborn babies had a chance to enter this world and grow up in a sound environment worthy of a first world country. Over the years there has been all manner of mortified hand wringing and state intervention only to result in nigh on the highest out-of-wedlock birthrate in the world, CYF expenditure blow-outs, and right-wing threats to force young mothers into work soon after childbirth.
It has failed, and will go on doing so, as long as we follow the same prescription. New Zealand needs to change its attitude to children.
How different would our results be if we exhibited the same concern for having and raising children as we do for having and raising dogs?
To be a parent in New Zealand there are but two requirements: consenting adults, both 16 years or older at the time of conception.
In contrast, most cities in New Zealand have an average of 16 legal requirements for owning two or more dogs. Sixteen laws for dogs, 16 years of age for mothers and fathers. There is so much irony in this, it begins to feel like an Alanis Morrisette song.
Here are just a few of the rules to own two or more dogs.
The owner is given a background check to ensure they are of sound character and in a financial position to be able to take care of the animals. The owner must ensure the dogs receive proper care and attention and are supplied with sufficient food, water and shelter, and these conditions must comply with the minimum codes of welfare for dogs. The owner's property must be open to inspection by an authorised council officer at any reasonable time thought necessary by the council. The owner must have written consent from all surrounding boundary neighbours and the permit can be revoked at any time there has been non compliance with any part of the application. Any owner who has their permit revoked loses their dogs.
Now, these bylaws appear very reasonable and exactly what you would expect from an owner for the protection of the animal.
So how could we have got it so badly wrong - a sound structure of care for animals in comparison to an unholy mess for many of our children destined to formative years of neglect, uncertainty, and physical and psychological misery?
The irony is that if many of our parents had the audacity to contemplate seeking the ownership of a dog the authorities' response would be swift.
"Are you kidding us? We are not putting this dear precious life in the hands of a potential killer like you. We would be breaking the law. Why don't you go home and start making babies, there is no law against that, in fact go home and have heaps of them?"
Is this just being sarcastic, or true?
Not really, it's both.
This is not what Richard Seddon had in mind when he started the welfare state, or Michael Joseph Savage when he expanded upon it in post-depression New Zealand, or what successive governments of different shades intended when they bedded-in the caring state.
Maybe 21st-century New Zealanders should jettison some strange modern ideas and go back to revisit some of the policies that were truly visionary when past leaders were taking our country to the very pinnacle of admiration in the western world.
This was when we were delivering more economic progress and social equity to our people than any nation on earth.
New Zealanders were proud of the welfare state back then and the irony of ironies is, back then, it cost so much less.
Of course, back then we thought people as important as animals.