Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill

On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill with some reservations, as my colleague Bill Gudgeon has already pointed out.

Although this bill makes changes to the eligibility of retirement village residents so that they can apply for accommodation assistance, and also adjusts the way in which stand-down periods are calculated for seasonal workers who move on to the benefit, it is inevitable that the focus of today’s debate has largely been on the changes to the penalties for domestic purposes benefit recipients who fail to name the father of their child when applying for child support.

In New Zealand First we believe that the mother should name the father of her child if at all possible, particularly if taxpayers are asked to contribute through the benefit system. It is unfair for taxpayers to contribute the total costs that should be paid by individuals who conspire, or contrive, to defeat the honouring of their responsibilities. We have been told this afternoon by many speakers that 20,000 mothers cannot or will not name the fathers of their children. It is difficult to believe that none of these 35,000 children that we have heard of know who their fathers are. This does not make good listening—it is a totally staggering number. One in six of the people who are on the domestic purposes benefit do not name a liable parent. This is an issue that raises many questions.

It is a child’s right to know the names of his or her parents. It really is a child’s right to know his or her father and mother—both of them—and, of course, his or her wider family, or whānau. No one should deny a child that right.

We do realise that some mothers live in abusive relationships, and do not want to place their families at risk by naming the fathers of their children. While I do not wish to devalue the severity of domestic violence, or the need to ensure the safety of a family, that appears to be totally separate from the issue of ensuring that the father contributes to the financial cost of raising a child or children. Those fathers do need to be held accountable for their criminal behaviour and reminded, also, of their obligations to their children. I believe that many fathers’ rights groups would argue that the new exemption would actually strengthen the ability of mothers to shut fathers out of their children’s lives, by making false allegations of abuse and violence.

We must acknowledge the efforts of Mr Peter Hughes from the Ministry of Social Development, who has initiated a number of measures to encourage more sole parent beneficiaries to establish the paternity of their children when they apply for child support. We are pleased to see that there has been a reduction in the number of people with a section 70A deduction—a decrease of 11 percent. That does need to be acknowledged, but we would like to see further decreases there.

New Zealand First realises that the reasons for not naming the father of a child are very many and very complex. It is to be hoped that the reduction in this bill will reinforce the message that establishing paternity is important.

It is very interesting to note that paternity testing is not dealt with in any way in this bill or in any other proposed Government legislation. With today’s DNA testing—and I know that this was pointed out by Mr Ken Shirley—there seems to be little reason why 35,000 children should have no legally recorded father to contribute to their lives financially, emotionally, or with their time. It is unfortunate that in those cases children will ultimately be penalised for the actions of their parents. That is most unfair, because the penalties in this bill will not rectify the problem in any way. In fact, they will do little to help.

We hope that the Ministry of Social Development continues its work in this particular area. Ultimately it may be that the whole system of child support should be reviewed. For instance, perhaps raising the minimum amount of child support to better reflect the cost of raising a child would be better than reviewing the financial situation of the liable parent. We in this House all realise that children can be disadvantaged in the long term if they do not receive financial support from both parents. We all know that raising a child is expensive in today’s world. I have first-hand experience of that, and I know how expensive it can be. So we will be watching this area with great interest.

New Zealand First can see real, tangible advantages in this bill for older New Zealanders living in retirement villages. I think the Minister has said that up to 300 retirement village residents will be better off, and we hope they are. That money can be spent on essential items, as we can expect further price increases on all commodity goods with the increase in the price of petrol on 1 April.

This bill also reviews the calculation of the stand-down periods for seasonal workers. This amendment should allow a person to elect to have his or her average income calculated on the basis of either a 52-week or a 26-week period, for calculation of the stand-down period. We are only too aware that there are serious shortages in many seasonal industries, and it is to be hoped that the option of a longer assessment period will encourage beneficiaries to work in seasonal occupations without fear of a significant stand-down period when they require income support.

We will be supporting this bill. We do believe that fathers are an important part of the family, and we do believe that they should be identified and named for the sake of their children.