Labour confirms they are the Bludgers party

Carmel Sepuloni has confirmed why it is that Labour fails to fire.

She has issued a missive deriding Work and Income for penalising bludgers who don’t name the fathers of their income streams.

It’s time to repeal a law that sanctions sole parent families for not identifying the name of the other parent, Labour’s Social Development Spokesperson Carmel Sepuloni says.

“Every week, 17,000 children are missing out because their sole parent is being sanctioned by WINZ for not identifying the child’s other parent. The average loss is between $22 and $28 a week – a huge amount for families struggling to get by. This is impacting nearly 20% of sole parent families reliant on benefits.

“The intent of this legislation was to encourage fathers to pay their child support, but the administration of it has been patchy and unfair – 97.7% of people sanctioned are women, and 52.8% Maori. The law isn’t working as intended, and its hurting families and children.  

“The way this law is being implemented is making things even worse. All that is required is for a parent to write a personal statement about why they haven’t identified the other parent. Yet people who come in to Work and Income are instead being told they need to go to a lawyer, which is unaffordable for most.

“This is especially concerning when women feel pressured to release the identity of the father when there may be fear of violence, or if the child is a product of incest or rape.

“Today, I have lodged an SOP to amend sections of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill to ensure sole parents and their children are treated fairly.

“It’s time to stop discriminating against sole parents, and to make sure young children are not missing out because of bad legislation,” says Carmel Sepuloni.

Actually, it is time to act about the bludgers who seem to think they can protect the identity of their sperm donors who are also likely to be bludgers.

Most hard working Kiwis don’t think their taxes should go to propping the families and paying for the children of bludging ratbags.

Name the dead beat dads…problem solved.

We could even set up a website naming and shaming dead beat parents.

Meawhile, Labour should change their name to the Bludgers party.

 

– Labour party

  • Sailor Sam

    In a newspaper she highlighted the trials and tribulations of one woman who had a “one night stand” and does not know the name of her baby’s father.
    Amazingly in this day and age of the pill, how often we see women claim that it was only a “one night stand”.
    But I suppose when one spends all one’s money on boozing, resulting in these “one night stands” that there is no money left for the pill.

    • Rightsideofthebed

      Yet when you read through the article it is clearly spelt out that there is a ‘one night stand’ rule where woman who don’t actually know the name of the father aren’t penalised.
      Typical media party/Labour misrepresentation of the facts.

    • Korau

      Easily fixed.
      1. DNA test of child
      2. DNA test of each convicted felon
      3. Match. Bet there will be a large overlap.

    • andrewo

      She’s never heard of contraception, the ‘morning after’ pill, abortion or fostering.

      • OneTrack

        Not when the pay is so good tor being a single mother.

  • Jayar

    On Leighton’s programme this morning several people called in, stating that they have personal knowledge of how many of these women knowingly select the life (and benefits) of a solo mother. A trip out to any shopping centre will show many of these young women, every one with at least one child, quite relaxed and happy browsing the shops.
    The average taxpayer is sick and tired of this “rort”. The benefit originally was set up to help women leave a dangerous relationship. That’s long gone with young single women going from school to a life on the DPB. Their loser boyfriends are secure in the knowledge they won’t be named and can continue the relationship,.

    • andrewo

      It goes much further than that.
      Those children born to solo mums are feature in all the bad statistics in our society: Abused, neglected, criminality and gang membership. They fill the courts, the prisons and the hospitals.

    • Peter

      As a male teenager (I’m now 59), one of my favourite people in the world then was my “honorary” auntie Myrtle. She was an absolute gem and boldly told me to watch out for young women who were looking for nothing other than a sperm donor. She warned me these young women with a welfare mindset would ruin my life. I managed to dodge that bullet thanks to her. That’s well over 40 years ago and she was dead right. Sadly nothing much has changed.

      • kayaker

        My close friend similarly warned her three sons. In a provincial town and with their (good) upbringing & background, they were a magnet for such gold diggers. One of the three got caught. It was pretty horrific for a time. The mother didn’t name him on the birth certificate, he was totally unaware of the child’s existence until he was five when she demanded money.

        He’s an honourable decent guy, did the DNA tests of his own free will to establish that he was the father, complied with his support obligations ++ At the same, time he was emotionally affected as he had been robbed of all those years of being a dad.

        During this time, she was all sweetness and light. He had unlimited access to his son and they had some wonderful times (which we were also a part of as ‘extended family’).

        Once the formalities were in place, she changed her tune, moved further away and made it very difficult for him to see his son. Even though he is married now to a lovely young woman, he still hurts. Here’s a guy who just wanted to be the best dad to his son, but the mother had another agenda.

        • layoutman

          Actually this is an interesting aspect and completely missed point in the article. Fine to point out negatives and push sensationalist narrative but what about the positives. While I know many single parents do a great job with deadbeat dads (and even know a few awesome single dads) – I wonder how many great potential dads are out there who have no idea that they have kids out there because the mother hasn’t told them or added them to the birth certificate and are making it difficult for them for power/control or other reasons.

  • cows4me

    Wow now I really want to vote Labour next election, yeah right. Septicemia has really out done herself now. In one foul swoop she’s increased Labour’s voter numbers by a few thousand and at the same time has made hundreds of thousand Kiwi taxpayers bloody mad. What a dork, keep it up you socialist mongrels, I foresee a future where you are all standing outside this big office with the letters WINZ on the door.

  • GoingRight

    Agree with naming the father and if not a reduced amount should be given, however in a case we know the abusive father was named, he lives in Oz has been served with a protection order and should be paying just under 20k per year to WINZ which is then passed onto this mother but he hasn’t been paying this year and WINZ don’t seem to be chasing it up but the mother gets penalised as that sum is added onto her income as she’s is now finally off the benefit and is now in full time work albeit not very well paid but has lost the community card and other benefits due to his contribution being added onto her income. We feel very sorry for that situation as she is trying so hard to make ends meet.

    • pisces8284

      This story is all too familiar unfortunately. Our daughter (mother of 3) came off the benefit and is self employed (well scratching a living). The dead beat dad pays sporadically and this paltry amount is added on to her income. We pay her rent but she was struggling so applied to go back on the benefit. Nope, earning too much. Meanwhile the mother of his 2 new children gets given his eftpos card on payday to buy groceries. He lives in a shed out the back so she can say they don’t live together. The dbd doesn’t acknowledge his childrens birthdays, rarely buys them a present and sees them a couple of times a year when he is coming here for some other reason. Bitter? Yup
      Edit to say my daughter has made a wonderful job of raising her three children on her own. She and they make me proud

      • GoingRight

        We know how you feel. The sordidness of how some of these thugs live is so foreign to us – somehow we have to change society and some of the behaviour it will put up with.

  • Brian_Smaller

    ” 97.7% of people sanctioned are women,”

    So just over 2% of those sanctioned are – I presume – men who have not named the father on the birth certificate? Surely it is obvious that women beneficiaries will be the ones sanctioned.

    • Mark156

      It’s 2016,anything is possible

    • lyall

      that sure puzzled me, a single father trying to convince WINZ he doesn’t know who popped his child out – all to net a further $20 on the beni!!

      • Eiselmann

        Back in the day that male would not be the biological father either, they would get an EMA , (emergency maintenance allowance) happened mostly when mothers went to prison,died or otherwise abandoned their kids , and male family members stepped in to care for those kids .

        The deductions applied when no father was known….if that still gets granted would explain the 2 percent

  • RD

    The benefit deduction was first introduced into law by a Labour government in 1990.
    Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni said “We are a different party in 2016 than we were in 1990.” That’s for sure!
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/maori/news/article.cfm?c_id=252&objectid=11709028

  • Rebecca

    I suppose it is possible that 10848 beneficiaries have no idea who the father is, so are being disadvantaged by this deduction.

    But what about the 2189 beneficiaries being docked for 2 children with unknown father, 476 for 3 children, 82 for 4 children and 21 for 5 or more children? Surely they can’t expect the electorate to agree that there’s no problem and no lifestyle choice involved when 25% of those being docked, didn’t learn the first time and kept having babies to unknown men?

  • shykiwibloke

    Bludgers, Troughers and Crims party

    • kayaker

      Also to include Losers. By the admission of a Labour insider, they are spending a lot of time focusing on these segments.

  • Cadwallader

    I have to confess red-faced that as a young male I didn’t receive my share of “one-night-stands” and now at 60 I demand retribution in the form of a benefit, counselling and a government funded house. If these modest compensations aren’t immediately made available to me I might have to turn to “P” and pokies to console myself. I hope Paula Bennett is reading my plea as I really am desperate.

  • exSME

    There is a very simple answer to all of this – a woman should not be entitled to the solo parent benefit unless she has a contraceptive implant fitted and renewed every four years.

    Yes, I can hear the outrage now that she somehow has a “right” to bear children, despite her inablity to provide for them. In other words she also has a right to dip into my wallet anytime she likes. No doubt she also has a right to have a house provided in the location of her choice to house her brood. And of course a right to have it insulated and well heated.

    It’s great how we can just invent rights out of thin air, isn’t it? I might try declaring I have a right to a super-yacht moored in the marina. To me this is no more nonsensical than thinking you have a right to bear children willy-nilly.

  • MyKillS

    The example that was given (I heard) was of a 21 yo who had a one night stand and ended up pregnant with no idea who the father was. The questions that should be asked of her are:
    Why did you have sex with someone who you did not know and not have any sort of protection against pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease?
    Do you believe that your fellow citizens should be liable for your own irresponsibility?

    Regardless of this one example, why should the general population of this country pay for those who are not prepared/able to name the father whatever the circumstances are?

    I can understand assisting someone who has made one mistake but any increased assistance after the first instance just further reinforces the errant behavior.

  • Dumrse

    Caramel Sepaloni was on Keplars hour of fun this morning and try as she might the only thing caramel was saying to Keplar was its unfair. To her credit she did grunt when Keplar asked if it was fair for the taxpayer to foot the bill. The Free riding lister is a joke.

  • Wayne Peter McIndoe

    And they wonder why they are only 26% in the opinion polls

    • OneTrack

      I wonder how they are still 26% in the opinion polls too.

  • Big fella

    Nobody is losing money because they won’t name the sperm donor. Those who do name the donor are rewarded with an additional $22-$28 per week. Name the donor and get paid for it. Nothing hard about that.

  • Digger

    As a species we’re getting it wrong. Watch one of the nature documentaries on the telly and a Bellamy/Attenborough character tells us how the female of (whatever) species selects the mate with the best genes and best able to provide for her offspring. Yep, I can buy into that.
    Then I see the biggest drop kick scumbag homo sapien losers making babies at a great rate. What a future….

1%