Stop the Sanctions!

Written By: Ben Clark - Date published: 7:05 am, September 16th, 2016 - 131 comments
Categories: welfare - Tags: AAAP

Auckland Action Against Poverty has launched a campaign to stop children being punished for the sins of their fathers.

In this particular case it’s where fathers of beneficiaries aren’t known, so cannot be named for Work and Income to pursue them.

One can see the original intention of the 1990 law – it’s actually to make sure fathers pay for their children – but often sanctions hit the wrong target (just ask the Iraqis under Saddam).

So instead we see cases where the mother cannot name the father, and so gets her benefit docked $28/week. That’s a big chunk of the benefit, which leaves mothers unable to provide for their children. And – as we need to get back to with all these child benefit rows – the child hasn’t done anything wrong to be punished, and punishing them only results in long-term societal problems. We need to be making sure all our kids succeed, not cutting them short because we don’t like their parents.

Here’s AAAP’s petition for you to sign. It’s backed by Labour, the Greens, NZ First and the Maori Party, giving it 60/121 votes in Parliament. The Hair is wavering, and ultimately National’s response sounds like they’re still waiting for their focus group responses to come in. Only ~~Arnold Rimmer~~ David Seymour is committed to the sanction. So pressure has a good chance of working – let’s see how many signatures we can bring in.

131 comments on “Stop the Sanctions! ”

Comments are now closed

jcuknz 1

16 September 2016 at 7:48 am

Is there a way to sanction the mothers but not the children as was the original purpose of child benefits subsequently fouled up by well meaning twits.?
some how I doubt it. but one can hope … vouchers?
- Lara 1.1
  
  16 September 2016 at 9:52 am
  
  Even if there were, consider this.
  
  If the child was a result of rape the mother may not know the fathers name.
  
  If the father was abusive and the mother needs to have no contact with him for her safety, then not naming him helps her to be safe. Naming him means he has access to her and children.
  
  In those circumstances, you want to punish women? Really?
  
  And finally, no. If you harm mothers, you harm their children. Particularly when the children are young.
  - maninthemiddle 1.1.1
    
    16 September 2016 at 10:13 am
    
    Hi Lara…In cases of rape, incest and abusive relationships, the mother is not required to name the father (and rightly so). The current law works just fine by having the male participant cover some of the cost of raising his child in cases where he seems to be avoiding that repsonsibility.
marty mars 2

16 September 2016 at 7:56 am

Yes we do need to make sure children are not punished because of their parents. Good initiative because that is a chunk of money to lose and it isn’t fair.
b waghorn 3

16 September 2016 at 8:01 am

I know a girl who wouldn’t name the father because he is such a piece of shit man boy loser she wanted nothing to do with him ,it was her way of coping with being played by a scum bag.
- James 3.1
  
  16 September 2016 at 8:08 am
  
  So he’s not responsible and the tax payer has to pick up the tab for him? (That is if she is on benefit etc)
  - Molly 3.1.1
    
    16 September 2016 at 8:28 am
    
    James, the damage caused to children by having such a black and white view of “how things should be” can be witnessed all over this country (and no doubt the world).
    
    If you are so concerned about “taxpayers picking up the tab” – which to me interprets as the government caring for the most vulnerable, then answer this:
    Do you not have any relatives or acquaintances who own businesses and live a fairly comfortable lifestyle that arrange their finances so that they pay the minimum amount to support children from a previous relationship?
    
    I live in a fairly prosperous neighbourhood, and I can immediately think of two. Lovely men, with new relationships and children, who think nothing of paying the minimum and letting the “tax payer pick up the tab”.
    
    Reasons for this are fairly obvious. It is an accepted norm, to reduce payments out of your income to the government, without questioning what impact this has on services or quality of governance. Some in our society will denigrate behaviours by others, while indulging in similar behaviours themselves, without any self-reflection but with a fairly large dose of privilege. The continual use of “solo mothers” as a derogatory term, allows the majority of single parents to be treated with less consideration.
    
    You should address such inequities before making such dismissive statements.
    - James 3.1.1.1
      
      16 September 2016 at 1:36 pm
      
      This is a totally different argument – but to answer anyway – No I do not know anyone who does that.
      - Molly 3.1.1.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 3:57 pm
        
        “This is a totally different argument” No, it is an attempt to show you how simplifying complex situations leads to unreasonable justifications, and badly designed policy.
        
        “No I do not know anyone who does that”
        Then ask yourself if you know anyone who owns a business or who is self-employed who pays directly to his ex-partner on principle. Because it is likely, that they have been encouraged by their accountants and business advisors to do just what I outlined previously.
        
        The intent of social welfare is to provide the most vulnerable (in this case, the child and the caregiver) with the means to participate in the society in which they live, while being supported to meet all necessities for basic health, education and community cohesion.
        
        Not to allow for arbitrary sanctions of those members of society, that have very power or influence as it is.
        
        There is no necessity to know the name of a biological parent in order to support a child and their caregiver. It does not make a difference to level of support required. Therefore any such sanctions – are sanctimonious dribble masquerading as “wrap-around” care.
    - Philj 3.1.1.2
      
      17 September 2016 at 7:58 am
      
      +1 Molly
      Wasn’t Jesus an example of this scenario? Maybe God should be named as the father of these no name fathered children?
  - b waghorn 3.1.2
    
    16 September 2016 at 10:22 am
    
    she was on the benefit for a short time but has worked her arse of to make a life for her and her kid, the cunt doesn’t deserve to be named as father as all he was was a sperm donor . He also had his piece of shit mother hassling her not to name him , the world is not black and white but right wingers never get that.
    - James 3.1.2.1
      
      16 September 2016 at 1:35 pm
      
      But he IS the father. He should have every right to be named – and have rights with the kid as well.
      
      Just because you think hes a C**t, and his mother is a piece of shit – it dosnt give the mother of the kid to not name him, and remove him of rights as well as responsibilities.
      - b waghorn 3.1.2.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 2:25 pm
        
        he didn’t want to be named ,he hassled her as well as the mum , he didn’t want his other woman to know (who only came to light after the birth ) you’re living in a delusional bubble if you think all donors should have rights. offering scum like him $5 k to get the snip is something i would vote for
    - Psycho Milt 3.1.2.2
      
      16 September 2016 at 2:04 pm
      
      … the cunt doesn’t deserve to be named as father as all he was was a sperm donor .
      
      It’s the sperm donation that counts. He’s caused an effect that he needs to be made accountable for financially. His personal character, however unpleasant, is irrelevant.
      - b waghorn 3.1.2.2.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 2:27 pm
        
        so for a few bucks a week you’d be happy for shit bags to have the right to make a womens life difficult.
        
        Psycho Milt 3.1.2.2.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 3:03 pm
        
        Maybe you’re confusing multiple issues here. Making fuckwits who won’t wear a condom pay for the results doesn’t change anything about the nature of their relationship with the one doing the work of raising the results.
        
        Also: a few bucks? Have you ever raised a kid?
        
        b waghorn …
        
        16 September 2016 at 3:25 pm
        
        If they are paying they will think they have rights ,it is far better for the women and child that he has no contact(and i bet that is often the case).
        so punishing the women is wrong.
        
        2 step children of which i helped with 30 % of their child hood.
        1 wag junior a third of the way.
        
        I’ve also seen a good man do almost everything right and he gut rung dry and brought to his knees by a toxic toe rag , with the courts help.
        
        Psycho Milt …
        
        16 September 2016 at 4:09 pm
        
        If they are paying they will think they have rights…
        
        If such men imagine they have particular rights over the mother and children simply by virtue of being billed for child support, they’re wrong. We can’t prevent stupid people from believing things that aren’t true and it would be a bad idea to base policy on it.
        
        b waghorn …
        
        16 September 2016 at 4:25 pm
        
        Just for clarity do you think it’s right to sanction woman who won’t name them.?
        
        miravox …
        
        16 September 2016 at 5:38 pm
        
        Or more to the point, sanction a baby whose mother cannot name the father.
        
        Psycho Milt …
        
        16 September 2016 at 7:32 pm
        
        Just for clarity do you think it’s right to sanction woman who won’t name them.?
        
        Doesn’t seem ideal, but I’d want to see what the proposed alternative was before scrapping it.
        
        Psycho Milt …
        
        16 September 2016 at 7:33 pm
        
        Or more to the point, sanction a baby whose mother cannot name the father.
        
        There are exception processes for that. Which means most of these babies are being sanctioned by their mothers, not the government.
Sabine 4

16 September 2016 at 8:17 am

Child Benefit. We need a universal Childrens Benefit that is paid out irrespective of the parents.
Children have needs and generally speaking children don’t ask to be born either, and they don’t choose their parents. Full stop.

As for naming fathers, fuck there are so many reasons why a women may not want to name the father its not even funny again to start. Abuse, Family Issues, Incest, Rape to just name a few. But then never let a good moment pass to shame a women.

As for the Hairpiece, there is no chance he would ever do the right thing.
- Macro 4.1
  
  16 September 2016 at 11:39 am
  
  “We need a universal Childrens Benefit that is paid out irrespective of the parents.
  Children have needs and generally speaking children don’t ask to be born either, and they don’t choose their parents. Full stop.”
  QFT
Simon 5

16 September 2016 at 8:45 am

Crikey some mothers may not know whos sperm was instrumental in conception. Should the family unit be disadvantaged for a man or woman not being monogamist.
The reality is the child is the future of our society. For sure its cost effective to spend a little on children now….
Healthy children, healthy society.
- UncookedSelachimorpha 5.1
  
  16 September 2016 at 11:22 am
  
  Exactly!
  
  Such a lot of focus on small change at the poverty end of town, and no focus on the top. $28 bucks / week is nothing in the grand scheme of things, when we have people like Graham Hart and John Key with millions and billions and in all probability paying very little tax relative to their wealth.
  - Chris 5.1.1
    
    16 September 2016 at 1:53 pm
    
    $28 a week is over $1400 a year. How often do homeowners cry foul when rates go up by a similar amount or even less? And the $28 is per child so there’d be a significant number of people having their benefits slashed by over $2800 a year as well. And how about the sheer unfairness of it? Doesn’t that count for anything?
    
    What’s more, the AAAP is drawing people’s attention to what governments have been doing to the poor for years. It’s campaigns like this that build greater community support for policies that look after the vulnerable. It’s this kind of support that’s been lacking in the public psyche for decades now and is what’s been giving those governments free rein to screw over those without a voice. It’s high bloody time we did something about it.
    - UncookedSelachimorpha 5.1.1.1
      
      16 September 2016 at 4:25 pm
      
      Sorry – I didn’t mean that $28 is nothing to the people receiving it – it is huge.
      
      My point is that it should probably be more, and easily could be if the rich could part with just a small percentage of what they have.
      - Chris 5.1.1.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 4:29 pm
        
        You mean benefits should be more, not the $28 a week sanction, I presume?
        
        UncookedSelachimorpha 5.1.1.1.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 4:54 pm
        
        Yes, benefits should be more (or a whopping great UBI!) – oops.
        
        Chris …
        
        16 September 2016 at 5:21 pm
        
        Yes, a whopping great UBI. No more “benefit fraud”. Wouldn’t that be amazing? People would be able to get on and do all sorts of interesting things without fear of going to jail or having what is the only means available to feed children mucked around with. What a vibrant and creative environment that’d help to create?
        
        I’m hugely impressed with what the AAAP group is doing. Looks like they’ve got real traction on this sanction issue. Maybe there’s hope we’re slowly restoring the caring society we once had after all?
        
        UncookedSelachimorpha …
        
        16 September 2016 at 6:29 pm
        
        The AAAP are fantastic. We just need their type of influence in our parliament!
        
        Happily there are plenty of people who care, but they don’t seem to be in charge of things at the moment.
Puckish Rogue 6

16 September 2016 at 8:57 am

Typical, Labour (I’m guessing) bring in the law, have a chance to change it themselves but don’t and now National will be vilified if they don’t fix Labours mistake 🙂

Just kidding (but not really) its a good idea in principle but poor in execution
- Sabine 6.1
  
  16 September 2016 at 9:04 am
  
  so its labours fault that under a National Party led government children have to pay the tabs for their parents perceived faults?
  
  Nothing to do with Paula Bennett, Bill English, John Key and all the other National Party stooges that have run the country for the last 8.5 years?
  
  Must be Labours fault ey?
  - Puckish Rogue 6.1.1
    
    16 September 2016 at 9:10 am
    
    Hmm so this law came in (from Labour) in 1990, Labour were in power from 1999 – 2008 so presumably could have ended it then but didn’t and now Nationals the bad guys for not ending it even though john Key didn’t win until 2008
    
    Yup makes perfect sense to me 😉
    
    But yeah the law should be amended at the very least or dropped altogether and hopefully National will
    - Sabine 6.1.1.1
      
      16 September 2016 at 9:23 am
      
      you are saying that the current National Party lot had no time to change it back?
      
      Do you remember Jenny Shipley? I think other than helping to Fuck up MainZeal and now covering the rest of her body in gold as a Member of the Oravida (Ms Judith Collins Husbands Company 🙂 ) she was PM of NZ for a while. Remember her? I think she was quite ‘useless’ or ‘usefull’ depeneding to whom you talk.
      
      must be labours fault ey?
      
      actually come to think of, why does anyone ever vote for National? they don’t undo what Labour does and still fuck up every day of the year?
      
      We could just vote for the absolute evil and stick it with Labour – cause they do it. While National Party stooges pull hair, can’t do basic math, build ghost houses to go with ghost jobs, build two lane bridges in Northland, create special housing areas for land banking and the likes. 🙂
      
      btw, https://unitenews.wordpress.com/tag/jenny-shipley/
      - Puckish Rogue 6.1.1.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 9:32 am
        
        We vote National because the economy is going gangbusters, 3.6% GDP growth, third highest in OECD, the richer are paying more taxes and the poorer are paying less, unemployment is down, the All Blacks are kicking butt and National will even fix up Labours past mistakes
        
        Whereas Labour can offer…Andrew Little, Annette King (to be fair labours best performer) and Grant Robertson 🙂
        
        Sabine 6.1.1.1.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 9:49 am
        
        bwahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
        
        got hand it to you
        
        your comical timing is perfect. well done.
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 9:53 am
        
        Thank you but I hope you can keep your sense of humour after the election as well 🙂
        
        Sabine …
        
        16 September 2016 at 10:06 am
        
        mate, i am fully prepared for another few years of the current stooges.
        
        NZ will get what it voted for.
        
        I am lucky insofar as i have the option to leave this country, pack my partner and live elsewhere on this lovely planet.
        I am lucky insofar as i have an average of 20 years to live (going by the ages of death of my female relatives) so anything that gets further fucked up by this current Do nothing – can’t give a flying shit – government will not hurt me, i be long dead.
        I am lucky insofar as i have no children and thus i can’t be really hurt by this current ‘ Do nothing – can’t give a flying shit – government.
        
        So in any case this government as much as any government really has very little to offer to people like me other then collecting taxes of me to pay for the upkeep of this country, and contrary to you and your mates, i have no issue with that. I also have no issue with a bit of a social net for those that need it. I have no issue with providing kids with food in schools. I have no issue with funding mental health care for those that need it, i have no issue with funding for health care for those that need it. You know all that shit that the Naitonal Party does not do. And above all i have no issues to provide single parents with the money they need to raise the next generation of New Zealanders.
        
        You however may have more of an interest in what is done in your name, so what ever comes your way, comes your way. 🙂 Best of luck, buddy.
        
        The lost sheep …
        
        16 September 2016 at 10:14 am
        
        What lovely country are you going to shift to that has a lovely Govt. that will offer you more?
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 10:17 am
        
        So what do you think of National increasing the taxes the richest house holds pay and decreasing what the poorest, even more so then under Labour?
        
        What do you think of National increasing the minimum benefits of some, more then any other government?
        
        What do you think of NZ being one of the top places for living in comparison to every other country?
        
        This is why National gets voted back in and this is why National will secure a fourth term because NZ, under National, is a pretty good place to live and the majority of voters agree
        
        marty mars …
        
        16 September 2016 at 11:00 am
        
        do you remember the post you are commenting on doofus – your “all sweet and rosy” is rubbish thus a post on the desperate plight of more than 13,000 women and children has to be put up. What a delusional dick – no wonder you worship shonKey – you do what he does – la la la la la all is well with me so all is well in the world la la la la…
        
        framu …
        
        16 September 2016 at 11:10 am
        
        “So what do you think of National increasing the taxes the richest house holds pay and decreasing what the poorest, even more so then under Labour?”
        
        ok – off topic and all – but what? I do hope your not talking net tax
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 11:12 am
        
        Are you feeling ok?
        
        marty mars …
        
        16 September 2016 at 11:18 am
        
        yep if I was you I’d ask myself that exact question.
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 11:21 am
        
        You don’t seem like your usual self, your postings are normally more concise
        
        marty mars …
        
        16 September 2016 at 11:28 am
        
        Back to work after a week off – I’m feeling pretty good. How about you?
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 11:35 am
        
        Very well thank you, the economy is going great, the All Blacks have ascended to another level (dare I say total rugby?) the polls are in Nationals favour (apart from Littles poll) and the weather is good
        
        Its all good
        
        Sabine …
        
        16 September 2016 at 11:37 am
        
        What do i think of a National Government that put people under bridges to live? Nothing.
        
        What do i think of a National Government that has cut healthcare to the point where people don’t get the surgery or medical attention they need? Nothing.
        
        What do i think of a National Government that has cut mental health care in CHCH despite increased need? Nothing.
        
        What do I think about a National Government that has no statement on 4000 – 5000 thousand people getting the shits due to badly treated or shit infested drinking water? Nothing.
        
        What do I think about a National Government that considers New Zealanders lazy,drug addled and useless? Nothing.
        
        what do I think about a National Government that increases GST to offset tax cuts for their mates? Nothing.
        
        What do i think about a National Government that forces people into ’emergency accomodation’ that they can’t afford and settles them with thousands of dollars of debt? Nothing.
        
        what do I think about a National Government that uses the debt people have accrued while being send into emergency accomodation by Winz to shore up their ‘surplus’ ? Nothing.
        
        do you want me to continue. 🙂
        
        the place i can move to, inclusive my partner 🙂 Germany. But then my partner is a Kiwi, not a National Voter, and he loves his country. So i guess we are staying and i will continue to remind you just how fucking bad this current National Party led government is. 🙂
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 11:51 am
        
        Well Sabine you’ve got another term to go so don’t waste all your ammunition just yet 🙂
        
        James …
        
        16 September 2016 at 1:41 pm
        
        Its all National bad – and you have no issue with others people money being spent helping others.
        
        But when it comes to doing – you dont even pay your own staff a living wage. (according to your own post a few days ago).
        
        Im sick of hypocryites who are happy for others to pick up the bill and moan and bitch – but dont even do the basics themselves.
        
        But let me guess – its OK for you to do it – because even tho you dont pay them enough to live on (according to a lot on here), you give them hugs or something.
        
        Reddelusion …
        
        17 September 2016 at 7:24 pm
        
        we’ll know ones keeping you here, by 😀
Chuck 7

16 September 2016 at 9:07 am

Your logic is flawed Sabine…”Abuse, Family Issues, Incest, Rape to just name a few.”

If a mother has a child under those conditions you have listed above, the mother and child need to be removed (if living at home) and protected (if the so called father is still in the picture).

Otherwise not only is the mother still at risk of further harm, so is her child. In other words the father needs to be identified. That does not mean the mother going through the courts (she can decline to make a formal statement), as I do know the immense pressure that can entail. The safety of the child and mother is paramount.

More often its a cases of the mother not being sure who the father is. Which raises another point, the child growing up not knowing who his/her biological father is.
- joe90 7.1
  
  16 September 2016 at 9:16 am
  
  More often its a cases of the mother not being sure who the father is.
  
  You know this how – tingling spidey senses, special discernment…?
  - Chuck 7.1.1
    
    16 September 2016 at 9:56 am
    
    This might throw you a little joe90…
    
    How do you know this is not the case?
    - joe90 7.1.1.1
      
      16 September 2016 at 10:08 am
      
      How do you know this is not the case?
      
      You said it.
      
      Put up or shut up.
      /
- Sabine 7.2
  
  16 September 2016 at 9:27 am
  
  so you are saying the few hundred man that are single fathers and have not named the mother don’t know who the mother is? Cause they fall under the same sanctions.
  
  National stooges. No imagination – clearly no man has ever raised a child on his own.
  
  But then Chuck, never let a bit of women shaming change your perception of reality and above all let the children go hungry, cold, and so on. that will learn them children ey?
  - marty mars 7.2.1
    
    16 September 2016 at 9:30 am
    
    + 1 chuck and puck showing the empathy we expect from nasty gnats.
    - Puckish Rogue 7.2.1.1
      
      16 September 2016 at 9:34 am
      
      Did you happen to notice this sentence by any chance?
      
      “But yeah the law should be amended at the very least or dropped altogether and hopefully National will”
      
      See I thought that was pretty clear but I guess not
  - Chuck 7.2.2
    
    16 September 2016 at 9:50 am
    
    “so you are saying the few hundred man that are single fathers and have not named the mother don’t know who the mother is? Cause they fall under the same sanctions.”
    
    OK so was the child dropped of by a fairy on the doorstep of the fathers house? Or the hospital or midwife did not ask the mothers name when they delivered the baby?
    
    “But then Chuck, never let a bit of women shaming change your perception of reality and above all let the children go hungry, cold, and so on. that will learn them children ey?”
    
    Where did I suggest “a bit of women shaming”?
    
    I was pointing out your flawed thinking…that a good reason for not naming a father was because of abuse (be it sexual, physical etc). Maybe its beyond you to think of the implications of the mother being abused again or worse her baby…
    
    I agree the current sanction needs to be looked at, removed? maybe…but we should not loose sight that any family / child needs both parents to be involved in the up bring. The question should be – how do we stop people from making bad decisions in having babies outside of stable relationships OR as you have brought up Sabine, protect mothers and children from the monsters out there?
    - Sabine 7.2.2.1
      
      16 September 2016 at 10:14 am
      
      as for abuse i was raped over a period of 3 years by my stepfather.
      
      Should i have named him as the father in case of a pregnancy? Would you? And you know, this shit happens. It also happens that women are in abusive relation ships and have managed to leave those and don’t want to other partner to find out where they now live. NZ is a small country.
      It might actually be that the father abuses the child and thus the mother does not name the father lest he finds out where she now lives.
      
      Abuse in this country is an every day occurrence. As for the women who has had sex with multiple partners and does not know who the father is, frankly if she wanted to she could cite all of them, get a paternity test done and finished. But then, you know what, maybe the father is a married man and the women simply does not want to upset a family who should not have to carry the bill for a fuck wit dad who went around the blocks like a stray tom.
      
      I actually know abuse Chuck, something that i believe you don’t do. And that makes you the lucky one.
      - Chuck 7.2.2.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 10:36 am
        
        “I actually know abuse Chuck, something that i believe you don’t do. And that makes you the lucky one.”
        
        I am sorry for your abuse…but to answer your question – yes I do know all too well what abuse does to its victim and family.
        
        My comment @ 7 of: “That does not mean the mother going through the courts (she can decline to make a formal statement), as I do know the immense pressure that can entail” is borne from first hand experience.
        
        Sabine 7.2.2.1.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 10:37 am
        
        well then you might know a few reasons why someone would not name an ex partner while applying for a much needed benefit.
        
        case closed.
        thanks
  - RedLogix 7.2.3
    
    16 September 2016 at 10:26 am
    
    As a bit of a tangent, in the five or so years before we went to Australia we noticed that in among our friends, acquaintances, tenants and work colleagues … that there were actually far more men raising their family on their own than women.
    
    Now I accept that anecdote does not equal data, and our experience doesn’t reflect the data nationwide. But it does suggest that single fathers are not the rare and unusual creature some would suppose them to be.
    - Sabine 7.2.3.1
      
      16 September 2016 at 11:12 am
      
      this is what people like me have been saying for a while now.
      
      single parent = women raising their children on their own, man raising children on their own.
      
      or, widows and widowers raising children on their own, divorced parents raising their children on their own, or separated parents raising their children on their own.
      
      but innit funny how its mostly always the women that get a good verbal bashing when it comes to the “benefit fraud” that single parents hoist upon us. 🙂
      
      as per this article it states that a small number of man are also cought in by these sanctions, and it is equally wrong.
      
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/84279840/government-urged-to-scrap-one-night-stand-penalty-for-solo-mums (argh and that headline from stuff is just what i spoke about – one night stand penalty for solo mums – fuck it really just fuck it. )
      - RedLogix 7.2.3.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 12:27 pm
        
        Completely and utterly agree. Gives me the shits too.
Puckish Rogue 8

16 September 2016 at 9:14 am

Mind you its stories like this that make me wonder if somewhere in the North Island, most likely, there isn’t a junior Puckish Rogue running around…
- marty mars 8.1
  
  16 September 2016 at 9:27 am
  
  Stories about the hardship and poverty faced by more than 13,000 women and children because they are punished for not naming a father? They don’t name the father for all the reasons Sabine named above
  
  “As for naming fathers, fuck there are so many reasons why a women may not want to name the father its not even funny again to start. Abuse, Family Issues, Incest, Rape to just name a few. But then never let a good moment pass to shame a women.”-
  
  what category do you fit into puck?
  - Puckish Rogue 8.1.1
    
    16 September 2016 at 9:37 am
    
    One night stand and some more in the morning is where I used to fit in, emphasis on the used to I might add
    - Sabine 8.1.1.1
      
      16 September 2016 at 9:51 am
      
      so why would any women not name you then? just a bad memory of a youthful lay? Or just not wanting you as a parental unit in the rest of her life? Or may there be other things why a women could feel it preferable to being shamed and nickel and dimed by Winz rather then naming you for child support?
      Or may she knows that you would be one of those dead beat fathers that would quickly elope to OZ in order to evade paying for a ‘one night stand and some in the morning?” 🙂
      - Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 10:03 am
        
        Nice to see you thinking negatively there 🙂
        
        The real reason is more boring unfortunately, I didn’t have a mobile phone until the time I met the girl who would become my wife and once I met her my days of chasing girls ended
        
        I never had a phone because I didn’t see that need for one therefor I never got one (even today I still use an old mobile phone, not smart phone) so by the time they realised they were pregnant (if they were I was usually pretty careful) they wouldn’t have the foggiest idea who I was
        
        Sabine 8.1.1.1.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 10:19 am
        
        I took your reasoning and applied to reality.
        
        Everyone in their lifes would have had some one night stands or short termed flings. Some may result in pregnancy. Some don’t.
        
        I have just given you a few reasons why a women would not name the father of such a relation ship.
        
        however i am sure your wife is glad you stopped chasing skirts.
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 10:27 am
        
        My view has always been if you’re single then go for it with whoever, whenever and however you like (without breaking NZ laws and with a consenting adult of course…or with adults if you’re particularly lucky) but if you’re in a relationship with someone then you’re monogamous (unless both parties are happy to not be monogamous)
        
        Sabine …
        
        16 September 2016 at 10:32 am
        
        non of my business what other people do with their lives. I honestly don’t care.
        
        I do care about pettiness like sanctioning a women and her child out of a few dollar benefit because for what ever reason she does not want to name the father.
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 10:45 am
        
        You do know I agree with you on this?
    - Brigid 8.1.1.2
      
      16 September 2016 at 10:10 am
      
      What then are you going to do about the illegitimate children you have spored that the tax payer is supporting?
      - Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.2.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 10:20 am
        
        Well first off I don’t know that I have any, I was usually pretty good with protection (but you know sometimes you have a little too much to drink…) so I don’t know that I have any
        
        Secondly as I stated previously:
        
        “But yeah the law should be amended at the very least or dropped altogether and hopefully National will”
        
        So I guess the answer is I’d like the law to get dropped then my taxes can towards paying all solo mums fairly
        
        mauī 8.1.1.2.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 10:52 am
        
        Sordid details, burner phones and sexual boasting. We’ve seen all this from rwinger men before. Eww.
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 11:04 am
        
        What sordidness are you referring to? I mean I will admit to liking putting my hoo-hoo dilly in a womens cha-cha but its not like I described anything salacious, pg13 at best and even that’s pushing it
        
        Burner phones? Like I would have wasted my money on a burner phone
        
        Sexual boasting? I was a young, fit, reasonably decent looking guy (not Val Kilmer but not a dropped pie either) in my 20s so fairly average (emphasis on the was)
        
        Are you sure you’re not projecting just a little?
        
        Sabine …
        
        16 September 2016 at 11:49 am
        
        you should have a coffee now.
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 11:55 am
        
        I’m not a coffee drinker, unless its in the form of a coke
        
        Brigid 8.1.1.2.1.2
        
        16 September 2016 at 12:44 pm
        
        So no, you don’t care to know if, or not, there are children as a result of your irresponsible behaviour.
        
        Wouldn’t it be hilarious if, in the fullness of time, you discovered you have HIV.
        
        (but you know sometimes you have a little too much to drink…)
        
        Maui is right
        “We’ve seen all this from rwinger men before. Eww.”
        And yuck
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 1:06 pm
        
        So no, you don’t care to know if, or not, there are children as a result of your irresponsible behaviour.
        
        – Tell you what, you tell me how to find out that information and I’ll try it
        
        Wouldn’t it be hilarious if, in the fullness of time, you discovered you have HIV.
        
        – Well no it wouldn’t because of course it wouldn’t just be me it’d be my wife contracting it as well but if you think that’s hilarious then ok whatever floats your boat I guess
        
        (but you know sometimes you have a little too much to drink…)
        
        – Yes I admit it I’ve had “relations” with women while drunk and I wouldn’t mind betting there’s more then a few on here that have also done the same so if you think that should shame me then that’s on you for being judgemental
        
        Brigid …
        
        16 September 2016 at 5:24 pm
        
        “Personal responsibility, the phrase all lefties hate and fear”
        
        Yet you expect me to tell you how to track down your fatherless children?
        
        The salient point is that it would be very difficult, in your case, if not impossible, yet you treat the problem as a joke saying “… its stories like this that make me wonder if somewhere in the North Island, most likely, there isn’t a junior Puckish Rogue running around…”. Lack of personal responsibility much?
        You see fatherless babies grow into adults who forever wonder about the missing link that their parents cant/wont provide.
        
        Poor little buggars
  - Stuart Munro 8.1.2
    
    16 September 2016 at 11:44 am
    
    RWNJ can reproduce asexually by budding or regrow from severed tentacles.
    - Puckish Rogue 8.1.2.1
      
      16 September 2016 at 11:58 am
      
      🙂
- Chris 8.2
  
  16 September 2016 at 1:03 pm
  
  You seem like a decent honest chap happy to pay his share. Perhaps you should make some inquiries so you can sort out any child support liability you might have?
  - Puckish Rogue 8.2.1
    
    16 September 2016 at 2:44 pm
    
    How?
    - Chris 8.2.1.1
      
      16 September 2016 at 3:02 pm
      
      Get on the net, start digging around. I don’t know, maybe you could get some tips from that guy that fronts that tv show Lost and Found? They might even take you on for one of the shows. Heck, some people get trips overseas paid for.
      - Puckish Rogue 8.2.1.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 3:26 pm
        
        Are you serious? I mean, seriously, do you really think that all someone has to do is “get on the net” and “start digging around”?
        
        “Hi I may or may not have had sex with you between the years 1990 – 2005 (approximately only) and it may or may not have happened in cities (and some towns) between Dunedin and Auckland and you may or may not have become pregnant which means your child (if you gave birth that is) might be aged between 11 – 26”
        
        “If this sounds like you then drop me a line”
        
        How can that possibly fail…
        
        I pay my share through taxes which I’m happy to do so and unless you or someone else can think of a way to track down a kid (might even be kids) that might not even exist then I’ll leave it at that
        
        Chris 8.2.1.1.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 3:51 pm
        
        That chap on the Lost and Found programme seems pretty on to it. I reckon he’ll be into it.
        
        “Tonight we meet a man who wants to try to find any women who he’s had a one night stand and some more in the morning with in case he’s the biological father of any children who may have been born as a result of any of these one night stands and some more in the morning. Mr Rogue says that he’s been feeling guilty for years that he may be liable for child support and that he would really like to find out so he can give back to the state all the money he might owe. We’ve decided to help him by taking him on a journey from Auckland to Dunedin, stopping in towns in between, to try to find any women who he’s had one night stands and some more in the morning with between the years 1990 and 2005. It’s not going to be easy, but you’ll be surprised what we discovered.”
        
        There you go, have even written the intro for the episode you’ll be starring in.
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 3:59 pm
        
        I know its a Friday and all but maybe lay off the drinking until after you’ve had dinner
        
        Chris …
        
        16 September 2016 at 4:07 pm
        
        I thought it was quite good.
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 4:11 pm
        
        It was actually and normally I would have applauded it but after being told it’d be hilarious if I had HIV my ability to detect whimsy and sarcasm is a bit off at the moment
- reason 8.3
  
  16 September 2016 at 6:05 pm
  
  Relax Puckish …………. it’s highly unlikely some woman got pregnant by using a toilet seat you’d left your sperm on in the north island ………..
  
  On topic ……I’m against harming or depriving kids and I think the arguing over $26 or whatever the figure is has to be viewed in the context of the $2.2 billion that John Shewan and the Aussie banks tried to cheat from the NZ tax payer…..
  
  With the use of tax havens/tax vehicles by our richest ………and multi nationals like apple using john keys double irish scams to pay virtually no tax here in NZ ………. then it becomes apparent dollar-wise solo mums are very very very small change indeed.
  
  It is also worth noting that solo mothers on a benefit get taxed at %80 on every dollar they earn once they exceed $80 gross ( about $65 in the hand ), from part time jobs etc ……
  
  A system of Economic Apartheid seems to be in place…………..
Sabine 9

16 September 2016 at 9:56 am

and then there are always the billions of child support that is not paid 🙂

from 2013

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

from 2010

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3882606/Absent-dads-owe-billions-in-unpaid-child-support

wonder if the National Party stooges from this can’t get anything done National Party led government are gonna do anything about that?

crickets you say?
Yeah, right Tui?

hahahahaha pathetic. Surely these kids too should have had the better sense to choose better parents.
NoThanks 10

16 September 2016 at 10:13 am

There should be no excuses, and since we are all humans with intelligence, I would argue that everyone has some capacity to look after themselves unlike trees and flowers, and should somebody fails to do what is required, he or she WILL be penalised because dole money didn’t grow on the NZ dollar trees, it is collected by taxation.
- Macro 10.1
  
  16 September 2016 at 11:44 am
  
  🙄
Invisible Axe 11

16 September 2016 at 10:19 am

Sole parents, welfare, unwed mothers, knew this subject would bring the righties out in full force, nothing like a bash at the poor to brighten their day!
- Puckish Rogue 11.1
  
  16 September 2016 at 10:29 am
  
  Well I’ve said the law should be at the very least amended or dropped and Chuck said “I agree the current sanction needs to be looked at, removed?” so I’m wondering if you read the comments
Psycho Milt 12

16 September 2016 at 10:58 am

One can see the original intention of the 1990 law – it’s actually to make sure fathers pay for their children – but often sanctions hit the wrong target (just ask the Iraqis under Saddam).

So, what alternative measure do the petitioners propose to make sure fathers pay for their children? As it stands, all they’re requesting is that the government make welfare fraud easier.
- Sabine 12.1
  
  16 September 2016 at 11:15 am
  
  i linked to two articles above about ‘deadbeat dads not paying child support” apparently its billions, but hey lets take 28$ from a single mum cause she don’t name dad.
  
  No way is National going after their core voters. Middle class NZ blokes 🙂 would not be good for business.
  - Psycho Milt 12.1.1
    
    16 September 2016 at 11:21 am
    
    So, if AAAP started a petition to have the government stop pursuing these deadbeat dads or imposing sanctions on them, you’d be an enthusiastic supporter? Because I’m seeing the same issue in both cases.
    - Sabine 12.1.1.1
      
      16 September 2016 at 11:42 am
      
      absolulty. Yes i would, and it would also include dead beat Mothers.
      
      Heck, i am a child less women and my taxes go to benefit middle class families that can access the Working for Families ‘TaxBenefit’.
      
      if you read my above statement i said something like : WE NEED A UNIVERSAL CHILD BENEFIT”. You know the one abolished under a previous National Party Government if my memory serves right. Independent of their parents. Cause some parents are plain useless.
      
      and btw. one reason women may not name a father is that they decided to keep the child that the man does not want (yeah, not all babies are blessings wanted by both parents) and does not see why he should then be made to pay for it.
      - Psycho Milt 12.1.1.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 12:06 pm
        
        if you read my above statement i said something like : WE NEED A UNIVERSAL CHILD BENEFIT”.
        
        No disagreement from me on that one – it was stupid to get rid of it in the first place.
        
        …one reason women may not name a father is that they decided to keep the child that the man does not want … and does not see why he should then be made to pay for it.
        
        Tough shit. A child isn’t a hobby or some kind of personal accessory. If someone decides they want a baby but don’t want a spouse, they need to have a think about how they’re going to support this “family.” If they don’t see why the father should pay for it, why do they imagine everyone else should pay?
        
        Sabine 12.1.1.1.1.1
        
        16 September 2016 at 12:21 pm
        
        you do realize that often times the question of wanting it or not wanting it does not even get asked.
        
        Often women don’t realize that they are pregnant until 6 – 8 weeks in. To then get an abortion could be an issue. Or she is christian and will not have an abortion. Would it be correct to assume that you are a bloke and thus will never ever have to be ‘asked this question” ?
        
        And again, assume that the women works before she goes on a ‘benefit’ to raise the future generation of kiwis, and will go again to work once the child is older one could assume that she is paying for the benefit herself.
        
        Also why would i, a childless women, pay taxes for anything that benefits someone other then me?
        
        Why should my tax dollars go to the middle class families claiming Working for Families, i mean if they can’t afford the kids should they simply not have them? Tough shit too then?
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 12:46 pm
        
        I agree, WFF is a damn rort and pure middle-class bribery (although excellent politics by Helen Clark) that should be removed
        
        But won’t of course
        
        Sabine …
        
        16 September 2016 at 12:58 pm
        
        nah, cause that would make some of the National Party Supporters unhappy, ey? After all only the single women need to be told not to have children they can’t afford. Matters very little that a lot of the single women had their children while married – but are now divorced, or widowed or separated. But hey some get to feel good about them and bash the loose women that have children they can’t afford.
        
        marty mars …
        
        16 September 2016 at 1:21 pm
        
        I call bullshit on that puck – we NEED that extra assistance – without it we can’t pay the bills – and yep you guessed it – not middle class.
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 1:25 pm
        
        I’m lower middle class and I’m paying my bills just fine so no WFF is just a rort
        
        marty mars …
        
        16 September 2016 at 1:41 pm
        
        do you have children
        do you get WFF
        are you on an hourly rate or a salary
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 2:00 pm
        
        do you have children
        
        – No
        
        do you get WFF
        
        – No
        
        are you on an hourly rate or a salary
        
        – Salary
        
        marty mars …
        
        16 September 2016 at 2:12 pm
        
        yep thought so 🙄
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 2:22 pm
        
        Maybe you should work on your priorities and your budget
        
        marty mars …
        
        16 September 2016 at 2:30 pm
        
        ha – so good to see your real shitty arsehole personality come out instead of all your bullshitting – hi rwnj
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 2:37 pm
        
        Personal responsibility, the phrase all lefties hate and fear
        
        marty mars …
        
        16 September 2016 at 2:51 pm
        
        you know nothing about me
        
        but oh so quick to judge – that is a real right wing nutjob (rwnj) trait – ha ha what a dim you are 🙂
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 2:58 pm
        
        you know nothing about me
        
        but oh so quick to judge – that is a real right wing nutjob (rwnj) trait – ha ha what a dim you are 🙂
        
        Pot. Kettle. Black.
        
        marty mars …
        
        16 September 2016 at 3:52 pm
        
        originality – 0/10
        delivery – 2/10
        writing ability – 5/10
        
        c –
        
        sorry no gold star or happy face for you
        must try harder next term
        
        Puckish Rogue …
        
        16 September 2016 at 4:07 pm
        
        Not a pleasant experience is it, when you realise that you’re a hypocrite
        
        Psycho Milt …
        
        16 September 2016 at 12:56 pm
        
        Also why would i, a childless women, pay taxes for anything that benefits someone other then me?
        
        Because that’s how income tax works.
        
        Why should my tax dollars go to the middle class families claiming Working for Families, i mean if they can’t afford the kids should they simply not have them?
        
        Working for Families is a subsidy to employers for low wages. It is an abomination, yes, but really nothing to do with this thread.
        
        There are multiple moral hazards with sole-parent welfare support that need to be dealt with one way or another – otherwise we end up with a hundred thousand kids being raised by a sole parent on welfare, or 13,000 single mothers who can’t or won’t name the kids’ fathers. I can agree with AAAP that this particular mechanism for dealing with the moral hazard is crap, but they aren’t proposing a better one. Even a crap restraint is better than none.
        
        Sabine …
        
        16 September 2016 at 1:09 pm
        
        nah, its a benefit and should be removed. Full stop.
        if they can’t afford to have three children then they should not.
        Working for families is based on the income, http://www.workingforfamilies.govt.nz/ so if you are a one income family with a good income you might still get working for families cause threshold. So yeah, they should not fuck around without protection all these ‘tax’ beneficiaries lest they end up with children they can’t afford without tax hand outs.
        
        Again, just so you understand, single parents in many cases are divorced mothers, separated mothers and widowed mothers. And some single parents are single dads, and they are divorced dads, separated dads, and widowed dads.
        Btw, The Widowers Benefit was equally scrapped.
        
        Welfare reform 2013 did this – namely remove these three forms of the DPB:
        Until July 2013, there are three forms of Domestic Purposes Benefit:
        DPB – Sole Parent
        DPB – Care for the Sick or Infirm
        DPB – Woman Alone
        
        At the end of December 2012, 109,118 people were receiving DPB – Sole Parent, of which around 12% were male.[6]
        The DPB Sole Parent was renamed “Sole Parent Support” at the same time.
        Information from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_New_Zealand#Domestic_Purposes_Benefit_.28Sole_Parent_Support.29
        
        and yes for the well being of the children this sanction should simply be scrapped.
        
        Psycho Milt …
        
        16 September 2016 at 2:01 pm
        
        Again, just so you understand, single parents in many cases are divorced mothers, separated mothers and widowed mothers. And some single parents are single dads, and they are divorced dads, separated dads, and widowed dads.
        
        Yes, I know why we have welfare support for sole parents and am not arguing that we don’t need it, so there’s no need for you to keep posting examples of why we have welfare support for sole parents.
        
        So yeah, they should not fuck around without protection all these ‘tax’ beneficiaries lest they end up with children they can’t afford without tax hand outs.
        
        WfF is a stupid and misguided attempt to make up for NZ’s wages being so low you can’t raise a family on them. It would make more sense to fix the low-wages problem, but they didn’t. You seem to be arguing either that WfF is the same as the Sole Parent Support benefit, or that because the government maintains this one stupid and expensive mistake it should commit to this other stupid, expensive mistake. Neither of those is a good argument.
        
        and yes for the well being of the children this sanction should simply be scrapped.
        
        It’s not good for the well-being of children to encourage wasters to produce children they didn’t want and are incapable of raising themselves. So, yeah, by all means scrap this sanction if there’s some indication actually-existing children would benefit from doing so, but only if there’s a replacement system that works better.
- Chris 12.2
  
  16 September 2016 at 4:24 pm
  
  How is AAAP requesting that the government make welfare fraud easier? I don’t think it’s a crime not to name the father of your child. From the information on the AAAP campaign website it’s the sanction that’s imposed if you don’t name the father. There’s nothing in there about fraud.
marty mars 13

16 September 2016 at 11:12 am

I can’t see why all men* should not pay for the irresponsibility of other men. If they did then men would be on the case to create better men who either don’t father children willy nilly or if they do, they pay for the survival of their child. If some men don’t want to do this they will get caught up in the payment anyway. If a woman does not want to name a father then that father pays anyway. All of the extra money paid by men could go into a fund that is paid to children and solo parents (yes including solo dads) to help them survive.

* I realise gender is not so easily defined and apologies if this binary offends anyone, but for the purposes of this comment I am using the men/women gender binary.
One Two 14

16 September 2016 at 12:07 pm

Gender is binary in the context of human creation through intercourse
Anno1701 15

16 September 2016 at 12:43 pm

Classic Calvinist bullshit….
save nz 16

16 September 2016 at 1:04 pm

Great post. The benefit is for the child. It makes no sense to limit the money for the child. Also am shocked at the stories of WINZ deciding that some one is committing benefit fraud because they are in a relationship. Let DPB recipients be in a relationship – it is only if the couple start supporting each other financially then it should be looked at in relation to the benefit. Many of the so called spouses are users and abusers so just absurd to take money away from the child, criminalise the parent (in some cases even jail time and the kids in CYPS care) for some 19th contrary moral crusade. Get Fucking real. People have sex, they have sex outside of marriage and it is nothing to do with income! Don’t take it out on the kid and have the state become some sort of peeping tom inspecting the sheets/fb pages in the tax payers name!
greywarshark 17

20 September 2016 at 9:20 pm

This is a very strange attitude for someone who considers they have ethical concerns in a modern society that respects women and all citizens.
.So instead we see cases where the mother cannot name the father, and so gets her benefit docked $28/week. That’s a big chunk of the benefit, which leaves mothers unable to provide for their children. And – as we need to get back to with all these child benefit rows – the child hasn’t done anything wrong to be punished,…
We need to be making sure all our kids succeed, not cutting them short because we don’t like their parents.

A woman not naming the father rather than having him involved and vengeful as a very unsuitable parent,may be the best thing for the child and good stable parenting. It is bad economics to force a one-night-stand, a seemingly pleasant but short-term acquaintance or particularly, a deadhead, to front up. In fact it is a stupid, moralistic attitude from the Victorian era.

Train the mother in parenting skills, give her a chance for further education, and be supported as she grows up fast and takes on the onerous role of parent. That’s the way to go and the attitude displayed in the post should be erased.

It sounds as if you Ben Clark consider that having sex and having children is a bad thing. Yet it is what humans are programmed to do, it is just being human FGS. Long may it continue, though stopping having children after three would be a good guideline on an overcrowded, job deficient, planet. Nurture the parent, educate and support – don’t infantilise and debase the mother for having sex without getting the partner to sign a contract of surety first.
greywarshark 18

23 September 2016 at 5:43 pm

I should have added to the put-downs that women are receiving – don’t demonise mothers FGS!