Reply to UF Gender Affairs and voting
Actually,Â Scrap, Â you have your facts wrong.
UnitedFuture policy is clear and on the website at www.unitedfuture.org.nz.Â It would not keep the MWA as it is at all.
UnitedFuture would rename and refocus the MWA and split it, between a work programme to look at issues pertaining to women and an equal work programme to look at issues pertaining to men.
This is because the specific needs of both genders co-exist and can only be addressed by recognising the effects that any policy has on both men and women.Â
It is also because UnitedFuture is about getting things done, not lobbying, and a move to completely scrap the MWA all together would be met with such opposition it would never get the numbers in the House to be achieved.Â So UF tries to make small but significant steps…
It is effectively creating a mens affairs office to complement/offset the womens affairs office, but under an umbrella Ministry,Â as it makes sense as much of the research and studies undertaken are of interest and relevance to both genders – so sharing could occur for more robust research and advocacy.Â but obviously not in all cases.
The Families Commission was created by UnitedFuture but was never under it’s control.Â
However the new Commissioner is Jan Pryor is highly praised could see a new phase int eh commissions advocacy and research.Â Â
Upcoming work includes a study into families after separation, the kids, the mums and the dads, and how to improve things – this was a request of UnitedFuture.
UnitedFuture is the only party (that has any chance at being in parliament) that has a Gender Affairs policy.
Recognise that men and women are both perpetrators and victims and target family violence policy accordingly.
End gender discrimination, recognising that both women and men can face unwelcome discrimination.
Extend paid and unpaid parental leave to both parents.
Recognise the imperative for fathers to bond with their newborns by an extension of parental leave.
Support flexible working hours.
Change the law to a presumption of shared parenting in custody disputes as it is usually in the best interests of the child to continue his/her relationship with both parents.
This is on top of getting a DNA paternity testing bill on the order paper and having a shared parenting bill in the ballot.
It begs the question of why some commenters choose to attack the Party that most closely advocates policies that promote the rights of fathers and men.Â Of course it doesn’t go as far as some of the extremes would like – but this is the reason they are still in parliament.
One could ask whether it makes more sense to give a vote to a party that has no hope of making it into parliament, in which case it will be distributed among the main parties, or voting for a party that will be back, and can and is changing things, albiet one step at a time.Â
With only 2 MPs UnitedFuture cannot overhaul of the entire governmental system and environment, any more than a lobby group can.Â But it is best and only chance that mens and fathers rights will be progressed in the next term.Â the more MPs it gets, the more power and influence it has to make change.
Some policies such as shared care in the family court are critised because it doesn’t explicitly state that it should be 50/50.Â This is politically naive criticism.
If the goal is to change things, to change the law, then you need the support of more than 50% of parliament.Â UnitedFuture can try and put shared parenting on the agenda and get it voted upon – but the more strict one gets, the more oppostion we find.Â Muriel Newman found this.Â
Would you rather have shared care go thru, with both parents at least 40% of the time… or have a bill get voted down that said equal 50/50 care?
Once shared care goes ahead, amendments can occur to make things 50/50 if we get there, but it HAS TO PASS THE VOTE.
this is what many dont realise.Â If you want things actually to change, it happens bit by bit and you take what you can get that helps.
Politics is the art of the achievable.Â That is what UnitedFuture is doing.
Lobby groups can hold on to their strict ideals and oppose anything that doesnt meet their every demands.Â That, with respect is what the Republicans are.
That is fine, but ultimately a complete waste of vote in an electoral sense.
Fathers and mens issues will be serves better off with an extra MP if it gets and extra 0.7% of the vote from men like you, than if the republicans get 0.7% and that vote is then redistributed among National and Labour and the Greens.
Think about it.