The first is that families should be able to capitalise their Working for Families payments to buy a house. I predicted Labour would put up this policy at the last election and I was wrong. It's just a return to the days when Family Benefit got many people into their first homes. People capitalising their WFF payments makes the assumption that the policy is here to stay. Let's not forget that the two parties Dunne is in government with both opposed the introduction of WFF on principle. It is still bad policy even if used to encourage property ownership.
The second is an extension of Paid Parental Leave to 13 months. This would cost millions yet as Eric Crampton recently pointed out, there is no evidence to support it being an 'investment'.
The last is a bit more from left field;
Mr Dunne said compulsory DNA paternity testing in cases where claims, counter-claims and doubts exist over the parentage of a child would “unnecessarily excite certain civil libertarian tendencies” but commonsense needed to apply.
The idea doesn't excite my civil libertarian tendencies. Currently, as I understand it, DNA tests require the mother's consent and we have the tragic scenario of fathers(?) stealing samples and sending them overseas for testing. From memory statistics show around 1 in 5 fathers turn out not to be, yet a man named in a child support application has to compulsorily make payments for 18 years with no requirement for the mother to prove he is indeed the father. That state power disturbs me more than requiring a mother to prove paternity.
6 comments:
More tripe from Dunne, the perennial political prostitute, in search of an issue with which to swindle a few voters.
It must be election year!
I'm a bit confused about the compulsory bit. Is it to compel custodial mothers to allow cheek swabs on the kids on the purported father's request where the purported father is paying child support? They can't do that already? Egads.
To the best of my knowledge the court cannot order a DNA test.
Some clarification here;
http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maxim.org.nz%2Ffiles%2Fpdf%2Fpolicy_paper_paternity_testing.pdf&ei=7ypPTYKFJYz6sAPh5Y2TCg&usg=AFQjCNEjitDcKKYwvbDcYk6M7igw8Cr5Gg&sig2=XQ5o7xgqa4KJilvTIvuRjA
Under current NZ law a mother can demand a paternity test, and if the father refuses the judge can assume he is the father on the basis of his refusal.
A father cannot demand a paternity test in law. There is a private members bill in the ballot at Parliament to correct this (via Nicky Wagner). We will need some luck for the bill to be drawn, but there is still no guarantee Parliament will support it even if they get to debate it.
The next step will be to get the outcome of the DNA paternity tests actually recognised in law. That is the hard part as all the family law is written around the presumption that if you were living with the mother at the time of conception, or you were married to the mother, then you are the father.
DNA paternity tests have been readily available for 25 years but as of today, men still do not have access. Figure for yourself why.
A father can do his own private paternity test if he can get access to the child, but it has no legal significance. Figure for yourself why so many men can’t even get to see their own child (but they still have to pay child support).
I hope Labour take Dunne's seat, I really do. At least they don't change their ideologies all the time.
Lispy Locke would be against it.
Post a Comment