Child Support (Almost) Amendment Bill: Cunliffe speech

Written By: - Date published: 7:51 am, February 28th, 2013 - 34 comments
Categories: child welfare, class, david cunliffe, families, greens, labour, same old national - Tags:

I caught the end of another excellent Cunlife speech last night on my TV.  He was speaking to the Child Support Amendment Bill (Committee Stage Schedule 2). Cunliffe was on fire, with some very pertinent points, highlighting the government’s callous disregard of child poverty and single/separated (usually women) parents.

Cunliffe’s theme was that it was an “almost” Bill; a shambles that had taken 4 years for the government to develop.  The Bill will impact on 133,000 children dependent on child support following family break-ups.  These are “faultless,  vulnerable kids.”  Cunliffe pointed out that this situation especially impacts on women who usually have primary responsibility of child care.  Many will be less well off as a result of this Amendment Bill.

Cunliffe said:

We have worked hard in the select committee to bring the government to the point where it would include a legislative priority for their interests.

But National MPs voted against opposition party amendments.

Cunliffe encouraged people to look at the minority reports by Labour and Greens, in which they have set out their views on the Bill.

It is about poverty, but National MPs deny that. The payments will not be adequate for a large number of children.

The video of the speech is here.  For some reason, when I have the Cunliffe video showing on my computer, the link I add to the post brings up Moroney’s speech. Like this:

[would be grateful if an admin person can fix it – thanks: fixed it, h/t CV & ropata]

Along the way, Cunliffe makes some telling comments about Paula Bennett, Judith Collins and one or two other Nats.

34 comments on “Child Support (Almost) Amendment Bill: Cunliffe speech ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Craig Glen viper 1
    28 February 2013 at 8:20 am

    Another good speech and piece of work by Cunliffe. The thing about this guy is he is not just good sometimes he is consistently good. National hate him and if you listen to Mallard and Hipkins so do Labour, go figure. One person is doing his job holding National to account while the others are doing a shit job leaking to the media defaming Cunliffe and have the blood of a poorly run election campaign all over them. Having Mallard in the party is so destructive, Charles is right its time for many like Phil, Annette and Trevor to go.

  2. VivaciousViper 2
    28 February 2013 at 8:47 am

    I also watched the speech by Cunliffe in Parliament, once again he was so impressive,that impressive that one national member yelled out ‘What a waste’, they can also see an
    outstanding member of the labour party who is denied being the leader by sharks inside
    caucus who feel they have total rights to the labour party and rule over it.
    For those who haven’t watched the video or seen Cunliffe in Parliament,watch it
    and weep, for what could have been,for what can be,for what was a winner so
    many months ago in a 9 out of 10 member meetings only to be struck out by a few
    self obsessed,self important caucus idiots,followed by a conference setup to discredit
    Cunliffe, any way they could.
    Members and those who feel that Cunliffe should be leader need to lobby Moria Coatsworth
    and express their concerns and worries that the Labour Party Caucus hasn’t acted in a
    democratic way after the Leadership meetings and their rights were stripped.
    I will NOT vote for Labour whilst Shearer is the leader.

    • AmaKiwi 2.1
      28 February 2013 at 8:56 am

      “I will NOT vote for Labour whilst Shearer is the leader.”

      or Grant Robertson.

    • Colonial Viper 2.2
      28 February 2013 at 9:34 am

      once again he was so impressive,that impressive that one national member yelled out ‘What a waste’,

      Yeah I know card carrying National party members who see in Cunliffe a very capable challenge which would finally force Key and English out of their cruise-mode control of the country.

      Ironic that even Nat supporters hate to see Labour struggling around in circles.

      • Saccharomyces 2.2.1
        28 February 2013 at 10:19 am

        Competition improves the breed, I don’t think anyone is enjoying seeing Labour in the state it’s in at the moment, except perhaps the Greens…

        • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1
          28 February 2013 at 10:30 am

          Yes I agree with your analysis.

          • George D 2.2.1.1.1
            28 February 2013 at 4:55 pm

            If Labour is hopeless and led by incompetent hacks rather than wise people of principle, the Greens will find government uncomfortable and difficult. It’s not what any of us hope for.

      • McFlock 2.2.2
        28 February 2013 at 12:58 pm

        maybe.
        the nat mp could have just been stirring shit, of course. Help keep the fight alive, sort of thing.

    • halfcrown 2.3
      28 February 2013 at 8:44 pm

      Now you know why the likes of Hoonton are so supportive of Shearer and will do his utmost to denigrate Cunliffe. He knows (Hoonton) along with other prats from the right that Cunliffe will take it to them in any debate and will chew them up in little pieces and spit them out. I will always remember the debate on Q&A between Cunliffe and that other right wing fuckwit Brash, where Cunliffe blasted Brash out of the water. After Brash regurgitated (AGAIN) some right wing crap theorem that has not worked Cunliffe departing shot was, that he would be happy to debate economics with him at any place at any time. The right cannot handle that type of in your face factual discussions, they sooner feed us bullshit and keep us in the dark.

  3. The Al1en 3
    28 February 2013 at 8:53 am

    I caught Moroney’s speech and have to say she was found off chasing a wrong ‘un.

    From what I could tell, she was venting at dads who were lucky (unfortunate) to have two nights shared care, and would benefit by reduced child support payments.
    Her argument is this takes funds from the mother (she willfuly changes carer to mother). She claims these dads who would make less payments, and therefore their genuine claims of guardianship and fatherhood must be financially motivated.
    Seriously Sue, that’s a twat attitude if ever I heard one.
    Talk about tarring all with the same broad brush stroke.

    No thought is given to men in low paid employ who actually do take to their responsibilities.
    Over three nights a week dads can rightly claim a proportional cut of WFF tax credits, under three and you’re boned by the state, yet they still pay child support at full rate, they still feed, clothe and entertain their kids. Sue needs to explain why she has not only smear their good name in parliament, but also why she and Labour seek to penalise these fathers.

    Oh, and it’s all about the kids.

  4. just saying 4
    28 February 2013 at 9:02 am

    I watched the speech. Just procrastinating really. And the more I listened the sadder I became.

    This is a Labour speech – you forget what they sound like.

    This is not a Crosby-Textor wanna-be speech in which the style dictates the substance and the form, (and it seems that over time, Crosby-Textor takes over the minds of its speakers until they are no longer able to remember anything of the point at all).

    It’s not that it’s particularly brilliant, but if you listen to it side by side with the sly, disingenous, crap the party churns out day after day, its very clear why Cunliffe and the rest of the social dmocratic wing of the party, had to be silenced.

    • emergency mike 4.1
      28 February 2013 at 2:49 pm

      “This is not a Crosby-Textor wanna-be speech in which the style dictates the substance and the form,”

      This. It’s like he’s articulately trying to appeal to the intelligence of the listener rather than mechanically trying to appeal to the nearest Crosby-Textor focus group.

  5. Colonial Viper 5
    28 February 2013 at 9:37 am

    A know a hell lot of traditional Labour supporters in my town. Not Labour members mind you, not people who are actively involved in the branches and LECs.

    This week a good chunk of them have been saying that they cannot hear in Shearer anything which relates to their interests. A few of them are looking to vote Green for the first time in their lives, next year. The rest will probably stay at home.

  6. Matthew 6
    28 February 2013 at 9:56 am

    Why oh why is this man not the leader. SERIOUSLY. My votes will be Green until it happens. Sorry bout dat Mr Shearer.

  7. tracey 7
    28 February 2013 at 10:07 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10868210

    Some scary stuff which has taken a long time to address. One thing overlooked is that the inflexible penalty system was brought in as a meager attempt to chase already ballooning non payment.

    The Allen – I agree that broad-brush statements do no credit to anyone. The best outcome for children is two parents living reasonably close together so children can move easily between two homes without disruption to schooling.

    I shudder that the cost of unpaid child support is way in excess of the benefit fraud this country is fixated upon.

    That people (mothers or fathers) will use loopholes and legal trickery to deprive their own children is more than sad. I am glad to see some effort (albeit not until 2015) to reign in some of the mis-use of trusts etc to avoid responsibility… the irony is that many of the 800 referred to by the Herald will vote ACT or Nat because they are sick of people not taking responsibility for their own actions.

  8. Colonial Viper 8
    28 February 2013 at 10:09 am

    Cunliffe’s speech

  9. The Al1en 9
    28 February 2013 at 10:22 am

    “The Allen – I agree that broad-brush statements do no credit to anyone. The best outcome for children is two parents living reasonably close together so children can move easily between two homes without disruption to schooling.”

    Both so true.

  10. Ad 10
    28 February 2013 at 10:27 am

    Any Parliamentary speech by Cunliffe should now be called on this site:

    The Labour Party (Almost) Real Leadership Amendment, Reading 1 (and the next installment is 2)

    The one thing about Cunliffe’s politics I am always confident of: in any decision he knows how many will be affected, and how the greatest should benefit from the few who have the resources to do it.

    Not sure if that makes him a socialist or just good at policy.

    • Matthew 10.1
      28 February 2013 at 10:38 am

      “Not sure if that makes him a socialist or just good at policy.”

      both good reasons to have him back, at least on the front bench…

    • Dr Terry 10.2
      28 February 2013 at 11:07 am

      Ad – he is just a good, clever, and compassionate human being which is such a rarity among today’s National/Labour politicians (I do not include the Greens). Avoid the labels. I know that you mean well and I appreciate your comments in general.

  11. Hami Shearlie 11
    28 February 2013 at 10:31 am

    As soon as David Cunliffe manages to get a chance to speak in public, the lack in Shearer’s leadership ability stands out by a country mile. David Cunliffe can speak eloquently and knowledgeably on just about any subject. Mallard and Robertson’s appalling management of the last election campaign should be FRONT AND CENTRE as Charles Chauvel said! THEY cost Labour the election, so it’s about time they shuffled off!! Grant Robertson CAME THIRD in the party vote BEHIND THE GREENS in his electorate!!! And the caucus think he’d be a charismatic leader – What a bunch of idiots – very, very small-minded and selfish people, that’s the Labour Party ABC faction!!! Losing the last election has cost all New Zealanders our assets too!! Thanks Trev and Grant – We owe you so much!! And hopefully we’ll be able to give it to you both very very soon!!!

    • tracey 11.1
      28 February 2013 at 10:34 am

      Hear Hear!

      Thank God for the greens, otherwise the only place for labour voters to go on election day would be… the park?

  12. tc 12
    28 February 2013 at 10:38 am

    I wandered across this last night (it was up against the Stones doco on Skime) found the heckling from the Nat’s quite disgusting but DC handles it like the pro that DS is not.

  13. BM 13
    28 February 2013 at 12:48 pm

    The only way you’ll ever see Cunliffe in any major role is if Shearer loses the next election.
    Shearer wins and I’d say Cunliffe will leave politics and I doubt he’d be back.

    If Shearer loses,he’ll be rolled and I’d put money on it that Cunliffe would replace him.

    Tough decisions for the left.

    • saarbo 13.1
      28 February 2013 at 12:52 pm

      Cunliffe and Helen Kelly leading Labour…it may have a hope of rebuilding into something special.

      Under the current leadership its f%$ked.

  14. Tanz 14
    28 February 2013 at 5:14 pm

    things are much tougher under National, especiall income support issues, and be careful what jobs you apply for, or what courses you try to study. All from a side who went to uni for free, etc!!

  15. Tanz 15
    28 February 2013 at 5:16 pm

    that is, especially. Single parents are frowned upon for undertaking arts courses, I reckon there’s going to be more to come.

  16. RedBaronCV 16
    28 February 2013 at 7:45 pm

    Yep Nact sticks it to women and kids and young people again.
    DC also makes the very good point that the IRD will struggle to calculate that formula. Even paying parents who will be paying less, $41 million less which the taxpayer now has to front, should be very very afraid.
    Anyway if the NActs stuck to the personal responsibily that they espouse, then the paying parent should be paying the lot.

    Lastly, given the violence stats in this country, stuff like they should live close and pay voluntarily is
    little more than a distraction. virtually trolling.

  17. xtasy 17
    1 March 2013 at 3:41 am

    Although Cunliffe may have to learn a bit more sensitivity and team spirit, what about a supposed “leader” showing some humility and dignity, to allow into the core fold one of, if not the best, politicians that Labour have left?

    I simply can only interpret the ABC stubbornness or paranoia as an example of the Kiwi “tall poppy syndrome” gone wild.

    Come on, if a man or woman have talent, skills and knowledge, only idiots can block the input from such contributing players.

    Maybe though, this is in part also the struggle NZ continues to have, to develope further, rather than stay put – and stumble across the lines all the times.

    In all honesty, a country gifted with natural and human capital as this should and must do a hell of a lot better than it is doing at present. The present government and “leader” do not really want to change the status quo, so they rather have a dumbed down, disempowered lot, that is easy to manipulate, to keep the elite in control, who largely are the lazy lot themselves, being appallingly poor managers in government and business.

    Hell, if countries like Finland, Sweden and Norway can do better, even Denmark, why the hell is this country being allowed to be run down to near third world status?

    Wakey, wakey people, voters and readers, maybe do a reality check and learn how things can be done better?!

Links to post