Passed Under Urgency
It’s that ‘deadbeat dad’ label surfacing again that got my attention – I thought we’d got over the media stigma and use of this term to describe the one bad parent.
The term has risen again in response to the Government’s shift on DPB mother’s not naming the father.
Now, I’m confused.
I thought this was a (the current acronym is WINZ) policy, not actually law? But a law just got passed, in amongst the budget legislation while parliament sits under urgency.
So, what actually got passed?
I don’t know, I haven’t seen the order papers or the hanzard transcript.
Is it now, that the owner of that information is the mother and it’s within her privacy and she cannot be sanctioned (in any way?) for not declaring who the father is?
Who do I ask to find that out?
The Children’s Comissioner perhaps or does it remain a mystery within the vague confines on new law that waits to be tested in some way before the courts.
Is our parliament that dysfunctional that it passes willy-nilly legislation in the expectation that we should remain unconcerned in blissful ignorance because we can trust our leaders?
What is the current situation?
While I might have an opinion, I honestly have no idea what the law is, or how it might affect fathers or grandchildren from this day forward. I’m in no position to give advice but then unnecessary old farts aren’t expected to be relied upon for advice anyway. Maybe there will be a tech course out soon where I can upskill and get a student loan to cover the extroadinary cost of this complex subject.
The agency which is driving this is probably not so much a secret and if you were asked, you would probably reply, that the Green Fems had something to do with it.
So, here’s what they had to say:
Green’s co-leader Marana Davidson accusing the National Party of beneficiary bashing said, (quoted from RNZ)
“You are not allowing people to live with dignity if you continue to stigmatise them. If you continue to shame people by setting them up against workers – that is not allowing them to live with dignity.”
Should I take this statement seriously and believe that she knows how unfair the child support system is when it comes to benefit recovery and is concerned about fathers? Um, probably not.
Should I look at it from the point of view that workers should pay their taxes and the government should have the unbridled say over how the joint fund is used?
That’s probably closer to what she means and is probably what has triggered the Tax Payers Union into a tirade about men who don’t pay child support. It’s not like they haven’t paid their tax and have any say over whether the mother should be allowed to live off the consolidated fund.
But what about the pregnant tribe?
Is that the basis of her thinking?
That the state should meet its obligations to the pregnant tribe without having to answer to the workers from whom the income is drawn and regardless of whether you’re a sperm donor, you’re part of the workers tribe or different parts of one tribe.
What are your thoughts on where we are up to with this one?
Pat Pilcher Retweeted
Mary-Ann de Kort
intentions about deadbeat dads who hide undeclared incomes and assets in businesses and family trusts to avoid paying their ex families enough to live a decent life and whose families fall into poverty because those dads are unwilling to pay their share.
Davidson’s speech to the house.
Looking at the video of Davidson I got the impression that when she accidentally says “My” she is talking about her own Family Court case in Parliament as opposed to “someone close to her”.
Regardless it raises the issue about what parliament ought to know;
Only the mother’s point of view.
Only the mother’s position on that court case
… is allowed in Parliament while men’s submissions are stopped at the bar on the basis that someone may be defamed.
Looking at what Davidson said, I have to ask, do young men live in fear of a birth certificate?
Why did this happen?
How can our parliament operate on half a story.
And in the majority of those stories the judgment is secret/unpublished/unknown.
….a bridge too far or just a runaway train….or a misguided belief .
Introduce pay transparency, by requiring employers to collect data on what they pay men and women.
Make public sector chief executives responsible for achieving equal pay for employees of core Government departments.
Amend the equal pay laws, to include agreed principles and an onus on employers to prove they are paying women fairly.
sorry Downunder, did not see video, got distracted by what I was reading.
Got flabberghasted by what I read as yet more onus is proposed for the business sector.
It’s a battle of the elite.
On one side you have the ideological elite wanting to spend other people’s money.
Because the individual tax take is extremely high and the corporate tax take (excluding gst) is sone low by comparison this is what they see as the most viable funding option.
Big Sister State chums up with Big Business Brother, arm in arm they no longer need or want small business cousin.
#6 I would agree with you there.
The individual would find it very hard to progress to a self employed environment and the number of participants in a viable small business would steadily increase making small business much harder.
Likewise the minimum number of employees in a large business would increase to sustain the economies of scale.
This would result in a state with a small number of (to use the biblical phrase) captains of business.
Do you think we’d better organise Quinn the Eskimo to come and sort this out?
#8,,, well Evan,,, I’m not sure,,if it’s too cold and nobody’s listening or marvelling he may perish and the animals will cry with lack of hope.
The use of parliamentary privilege by Feminist politicians to ridicule men’s participation in Family Court cases was common during the last Labour government.
This is perhaps a more visible and seemingly acceptable version of the same political nuisance.