Yet another scathing report into Child, Youth and Family's operations has resulted in yet another call for discussion about how best to protect vulnerable children and mitigate the social and economic costs of abuse and neglect.
One of the new areas up for discussion, according to Social Development Minister Anne Tolley, is how to stop negligent parents from having more children.
Mrs Tolley says in some cases CYF is removing the sixth or seventh child from parents. She believes the State should be providing more contraceptive advice and counselling, and offering the likes of tubal ligations to some women.
The anecdotes are certainly shocking.
It is awful some parents are so ill qualified to care for their children that they must be removed from the home; awful to think of siblings being separated; awful to imagine these children growing up with a profound sense of loss and confusion; awful to learn that has been compounded with neglect and abuse in state care.
But for many, Mrs Tolley's comments are advocating action only a step away from compulsory sterilisation.
Do her comments really go to the heart of the problem or are they an overzealous response from a desperate minister in charge of an agency whose own appalling dereliction of care has been highlighted in a string of damning reports over many years?
These have included last week's interim report by the Modernising Child Youth and Family Expert Panel (whose recommendations are due in December), and last month's final report by the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service Panel covering abuse and neglect in state care before 1992, and the first annual report from the Office of the Children's Commissioner about its independent monitoring of CYF.
If Mrs Tolley is genuinely concerned about getting the best outcomes for children, she needs to concentrate on putting her own CYF house in order.
And the country needs to know whether the shocking cases she has highlighted are indicative of the extent of the problem or isolated extremes. Assuming there is a widespread issue, the reasons must surely be addressed before anything else.
What are the current barriers to contraception? Education? Opportunity? Cost? Is it the case that for many people living in chaotic situations, experiencing intergenerational violence, rape and sexual abuse, drug and alcohol dependencies, poverty, isolation and mental health issues, family planning does not even get a look in?
And when children come into the equation, why can so many not be adequately cared for by their parents? Is that down to individual responsibility or societal neglect? Attitudes to violence, alcohol and women, spiralling inequality, a focus on self and the death of traditional support networks are surely all part of the mix.
Any meaningful conversation must use honest language, too. Would the family planning message offer these women a genuine opportunity for support? Or would it deliver extreme pressure regarding their fertility?
Is it freedom of choice, gender discrimination or an abuse of human rights? Is it a proactive solution or a punitive one? Is it a slippery slope?But is this discussion even necessary? The reports, expert panels, evidence and recommendations already exist.
What is required now is a meaningful commitment - of time and money - into vulnerable families.
That will mean ditching the quick fix reactionary mentality.
It will mean freeing up social workers and other qualified therapists from behind their desks to observe and work with families as they once did; to build up knowledge, demonstrate consistency, and gain trust, in order to start making a difference - over time.
To do so will require multi agency collaboration and cross party support so a change of government does not mean a change in progress, and the financial commitment involved is seen as an investment that will actually reduce the economic and social costs in the long term.
Importantly, the solutions need to restore dignity, hope, trust and self determination to vulnerable New Zealanders - not further erode them. Otherwise, what is the incentive for change?
