whanganui.org

And then it got worse

About a million years ago I was in the navy. Towards the end of my service time in the 1970s the Domestic Purposes Benefit was introduced. One result of that ill-advised legislation - Defence had to build a high-rise accommodation block for Auckland’s Devonport Naval Base. Just another cost to add to this millstone around the neck of society.

Why?

Before the legislation was enacted, there were usually about a dozen senior ratings living in the naval accommodation at HMNZS Philomel. Most Petty Officers and Chief Petty Officers were married and when serving ashore lived at home with their wives and families.

Those whose marriages were no longer in the first flush of burning passion didn’t have the option of shooting through because they couldn’t have afforded to pay maintenance to their abandoned wives and still live the high life.

Here’s a free ticket to the good life boys

Within a very short time - I think it was months rather than years – there was a flood of people needing accommodation – the long suffering taxpayer offered to subsidize the bludgers and they abandoned their wives and children in droves. The shore accommodation overflowed and a multi-story accommodation block was built.

Stupid legislation, and over 30 years later we’re paying for it bigtime. Anecdotally, we’ve all heard about young women getting pregnant just to get the DPB. You need to be wearing rose-tinted glasses to believe that it’s otherwise.

I have nothing against the DPB in principle

But like all other welfare payments it should be a safety net for those who have no alternative. Not an open slather giveaway.

What I object to is:

• that we haven’t done enough to force many thousands of fathers to pay their proper share of the cost of it.
  I know that some fathers are being taken to the cleaners. The system is far from fair. But many others pay little or absolutely nothing.
• that we haven’t done anything to discourage thousands of women from using it as a lifestyle choice.
• that, as a society, we aren’t encouraging wider families to look after their own.

And don’t give that politically correct nonsense about “better the kids are brought up with a single mother than in an unhappy two parent environment”.

• It isn’t so.
• Even if it were so, that doesn’t make it right.

Before this poisonous benefit was brought in I don’t recall abandoned mothers sleeping under bridges. I didn’t see neglected kids starving in the streets. People took responsibility for their actions and the actions of their families. People stuck to their commitments.

Society was better for it.