Turei distorts

Metiria Turei wrote in Stuff:

Section 70A requires single parents to name the father of their child, or risk losing their benefit.

This particular sanction is currently being handed down to 14,000 single parents, almost all of whom are mums. They are having up to $28 per week per child taken off them. The victims of this punitive and nasty law are the more than 17,000 kids who are then being deprived of that money – money that could be spent on food, or school books, or for paying the power bill so they can keep the heater on in their bedroom this winter.

Turei assumes they get less money by not naming the father. In most cases they get more money. The deadbeat Dads want the taxpayers to pay for theie children instead of then. So they pay the mothers say $50 a week to not name them (meaning they end up say $22 a week better off) and that means IRD can’t deduct child support from their wages, which can be well over $100 a week.

Why anyone believes that children should be punished for their parents’ choices is beyond me.

They are not being punished. The Dads are just trying to avoid any responsibility for their own children. That is not something we should encourage.

And why is taking money from a mother and her kids the only option if the state wants to track down the father? 

Because the mother is the ionly person who can name the father, unless Turei is suggesting every male adult in NZ should be DNA tested to determine paternity.

Aside from that, the reasons women may choose not to name the father of their child are myriad and complex.

For many, it’s because that person was physically violent or emotionally abusive towards them. They have made the decision to cut contact with that person, for their own safety and that of their baby’s.

This is where Turei basically lies. The policy has exemptions for situations where the father is violent or abusive, or rape is involved etc. She knows this. There is no sanction for not naming the father if it is a safety issue. The sanction is for the cases where the father is just trying to have the taxpayer pay all the costs of his children.

Surely, the sheer numbers of people who are being punished under 70A – and countless other sanctions – shows that the system that was designed to help people is failing miserably and is in need of an overhaul.

Nope. It shows the sanction is not high enough to make it worthwhile to name the father. It means the father just has to offer more than $28 a week to avoid being named.

Single mums on benefits should be no more required to name the father of their child than those women who work – that is, they shouldn’t.

Turei thinks that welfare shiuld be a lifetime entitlement with no responsibilities. I disagree. If you want the taxpayer to pay the cost of your children, the least you can do is tell us (unless a safety issue) who the father is so that he can pay some of the costs also. It is called responsibility.

The Greens are against there being any responsibilities if you are on welfare. They want to abolish work testing so peiople can remain on welfare for life. It is an appalling