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?