EDITORIAL - Standard should be same for all

LOUIS PIERARD
If anyone is wondering why the virtue of meeting one's obligations - from keeping appointments to keeping one's hands off other people's property - has become so debased, Revenue Minister Peter Dunne has provided the answer in a nutshell.
The Minister was commenting on the revelation that delinquent fathers on six-figure incomes are shirking child support payments. Figures obtained under the Official Information Act show 326 parents earning more than $100,000 are behind in their payments while thousands more on lower incomes are in arrears.
Mr Dunne was quoted saying he was appalled by the outstanding debt: "I can't believe people could be so callous or indifferent towards their children ... money is not going to dependent children. I don't think you can offer any excuse for people on high incomes not meeting their responsibilities."
Leaving aside the fact that child support defaulting has remained untreated for so long (as well as speculation on how anyone can be so unobservant to profess astonishment at parental dereliction) Mr Dunne's absolution for those who have less speaks volumes. Any parent seeking a reason not to pay has been given one by the minister.
No doubt he believes he is being charitable by making allowances for the poor. But rather than taking comfort from it (as indeed some will), those less well off should appreciate what a truly unpleasant insult that is: That a lower standard of morality is presumed of them. There's a term for it: It is called "the soft bigotry of low expectations".
Mr Dunne has just put up the weights of all struggling solo mothers who are being denied their due. He should be arguing that everyone, whatever their means, should meet their commitments or face the consequences. That he does not, is the clue to why so many delinquent fathers have no qualms of conscience about not paying.
The claim that "poverty" - that is, the state of having less than others - excuses bad behaviour is made on behalf of many who appear in court. If it is reinforced reflexively at the highest levels, what hope is there of it ever being otherwise?