Mike said it yesterday but it bears repeating: Bennett is running misdirection for the Parata.
Not letting bad parents have more kids is actually nothing new. It’s just the existing, and warranted, powers courts have to order CYFS to take newborns into custody and to ban people from contact with kids. With the meaningless* addition of making these orders before a woman is pregnant. No-one can show an example where this would have made a difference.
Good talkback bait though. Bennett’s just trolling again. Which is all she seems good for.
The Nats will be rubbing their hands will glee as the usual suspects line up to condemn what is little more than a populist restating of the existing law.
*(meaningless because it is not only previous instances of child abuse that can make a person unsafe to be a parent, and the ‘pre-banning’ won’t have any effect because it doesn’t actually stop a new pregnancy from occurring and any parent to be is going to ask for their no child order to be revoked when they or their partner become pregnant – the outcome will depend on the circumstances at the time. At best, you would get a slight chilling effect from a ‘ban’ but the kind of people who have newborn babies taken off them are a) unlikely to be chilled b) if they are chilled it will be from seeking medical assistance with a pregnancy, not from getting pregnant and c) must already know that they are likely to lose a new child under the existing law)