Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill

In looking at the title of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill, I thought what a smarmy title it is for a bill that will, in fact, introduce a $6 per week reduction in benefits for mothers or fathers who refuse to name the other parent of their child. [Interruption] People are asking how there can possibly be fathers who cannot name the mother of their children. One of the awful things in this country at the moment is that over 250 fathers who receive the domestic purposes benefit say that they cannot name the mother of their child.

💬 Jill Pettis: Mother?

Yes, the mother of the child—and the chief Government whip should know that. That is because those fathers do not have to fill in the liable-parent contribution form, so that the taxpayers of this country might receive a bit of help from the parent who should be liable. Apart from those 250—which might not seem many, except when we think that 250 men supposedly do not know who the mother of their children is—more than 19,000 mothers do not name the father of their children.

I have spoken in the Chamber before about this particular provision in this bill. I have said—and I will say it again—that this bill does nothing other than to send a teeny-weeny message that dads may be important to their children, and that maybe the taxpayers of this country have a right to expect the parents of a child to have the primary duty towards that child. Our parliamentary colleague John Tamihere showed, in an interview reported by the excellent Investigate magazine dated April 2005, in which he talked about fathers having to take their kids to sport on Saturdays, that he understands that even though some families do split up and mum and dad do not always live together, fathers are still important to their children—in fact, desperately important.

Of course the Minister does not understand this issue. The Minister thinks that if we take away $6 a week and on the same day give back more than $6 a week—about $19 a week back—then that will do. That is, in fact, just a token slap in the face for the taxpayers of New Zealand, so that this Government can say that it is doing something. Well, it is not doing enough.

Mr Tamihere says—and I have to agree with him—that he would promote Mr Maharey immediately to “make him wear” all the things—I will not use the term he uses—that have come out, because he deserves it—“him and his mob”. That is exactly right. Mr Tamihere is talking straight, and he is right. This bill does nothing for the kids of this country. It does nothing for the parents who cannot get access to their children. It does nothing for mothers who are subjected to stand-over tactics from former partners who say that if they are named they will beat the mother up or do something else to her, or that they will no longer give her the cash under the table that she is currently getting—because we know that that is happening in this country.

This Government smarms all over the place with its little rules and regulations, and the spin that it keeps putting on people. As Mr Tamihere says, it is all about status and spin; there is no substance. With this bill the Government just attempts a little flick, saying to taxpayers that it will get them $6 a week back. We know that that is rubbish. The only reason why we on this side of the Chamber are supporting this bill is that it is the very first recognition this Government and this Minister have ever made that maybe dads are important to kids, and that maybe kids have rights. Children have the right to know who they are, where they come from, and where their parents are, and the right to be supported primarily by those parents, unless there is some real reason why the parents cannot help them.

It is a real shame that the Government has lost the opportunity to say to those dads who do not bother looking after their kids, who do not take their kids to sport, and who are not there for their children, because they choose not to be, that that is not OK. It has also lost an opportunity to say to those mothers who basically in many ways act like children themselves, because they do not take responsibility, that that is not good enough for our kids.

New Zealand First supports this bill, with the provisos that I read out from our minority report in an earlier debate. At present section 70A of the principal Act provides that in certain circumstances the rate of the benefit payable to sole parents may be reduced in respect of each dependent child. The amendments in this bill provide for an additional reduction of the benefit by $6 for beneficiaries’ continued non-compliance. In certain circumstances, currently specified in section 70A(3) of the principal Act, a beneficiary who would otherwise be liable under section 70A to have his or her benefit reduced is not liable.

The amendments create two further exemptions from liability. Firstly, the benefit is not reduced if the director-general is satisfied that the beneficiary or any of the beneficiary’s children would be at risk of violence if he or she complied with any of the relevant requirements. Secondly, the benefit is not reduced if the director-general is satisfied that there is a compelling circumstance for the beneficiary’s failure to carry out any of the relevant requirements, and that even if he or she did carry out the action there would be no real likelihood of child support being collected.

It is of great concern to New Zealand First that a number equivalent to the attendance at Wellington’s rugby stadium have been born into this situation—35,000. What is this Labour Government’s solution to this fact? Would a continuing decrease in beneficiaries’ allowances solve this problem? What would this Government’s response be if all of the 19,000 mothers pleaded that their safety was being jeopardised? Is there an alternative, or will there be another select committee hearing at a cost to the taxpayers? New Zealand First considers it important that both parents are the only option in relation to all responsibilities for their children’s upbringing, and this includes finance. Hopefully the financial reduction under section 70 signals the importance of paternity, and hopefully the additional reduction proposed in this bill will reinforce that message.

Let us face the fact that this legislation will only scratch the surface, because the deterioration of the family unit is the reason for many of the social outcomes we are experiencing today—35,000 children and 19,000 mothers. Not all the blame is on the mothers. There are fathers who are evading their responsibilities of taking care of these children, and there are mothers who are in the same situation. Why has it got like this? That is the question I want to ask. Why is it that we in Parliament have to create legislation to support people in this situation? Why is an education programme not in place to teach people about their responsibilities and what they should be doing?

New Zealand First supports this bill because of the need to support people in this situation. But, as I have said before, if we give a person a fish, he or she will eat for a day; if we teach people how to fish, they will eat for the rest of their lives. So it comes back to education again. I am sure there is a solution, which New Zealand First would support, to reduce those numbers and to place the responsibility where it should be—with fathers and mothers in their homes. Our reason for supporting this bill is the need to get people stable, on their feet, and carrying out the responsibilities that all parents should be meeting. New Zealand First is hopeful that that will take place, and that the financial reduction will have the effect of getting people thinking in the right direction. But I can see that this will never happen, because of the irresponsible people out there who are in this situation.

So what is our responsibility as parliamentarians? It is to teach, to change, and to ensure that taxpayers’ money is put into areas where it is really needed.

I want to say at the outset that the ACT party will be opposing the bill, because it will not fix the problem of welfare abuse. This bill is just another piece of law being passed by the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Steve Maharey, to try to pull the wool over people’s eyes and make them think the Labour Party is addressing the problem. But really, the bill will do nothing.

This Government and Minister are soft on welfare. Rather than tackle the problem head-on, the Minister has put forward a bill that simply hides the reality of what is happening in this area. I understand why he is embarrassed by the numbers of women who will not name the father of their children. At the time the Minister took office, some 2,000 women had not named the father of their children. As we heard, that number has grown to 19,000, and is heading upwards as more and more parents realise this is a great way to abuse the welfare system. Even the Minister is on the public record as saying that most people who do not name the father of their children are not doing so because they do not know who he is; they are colluding with each other to avoid the child support system. No one believes that 19,000 women cannot name the father of their children; maybe 1,000 cannot—who knows? But it is certainly nowhere near 19,000. This bill endorses the abuse and fraud that is going on.

If a father can persuade the mother of his child not to name him on the birth certificate, he can avoid paying child support for 18 years. That is an enormous amount of money. That practice has been growing and is more widespread. But rather than address the growing fraud and abuse of the welfare system, the Minister has sought to hide the figures. If a parent wants to avoid paying child support, the bill provides two new ways to do it. Firstly, a woman might say she cannot put the father’s name on the birth certificate, because he is violent and she is afraid. So there will be a growth in domestic violence numbers. We will not know until further down the track whether the claims of violence are real or imagined. Secondly, a father could say that it is no good putting his name on the certificate, because he is not going to pay. He can claim to be a deadbeat dad, and the mother does not even have to put his name on the birth certificate.

I recall an interview on Radio New Zealand where Sean Plunket asked the Minister: “What if the mother claims the father is dead, and she won’t name him?”. I have to say the Minister was a bit stumped. If a mother claims the father of her child is dead, and she will not name him, how on earth can anybody check up on that? There is no way around that. So it appears this bill will do nothing to address the abuse of the welfare system, whereby women are not naming the father of their children.

Those women are denying their children the right to know who their father is. In some cases they are denying that dad the right to take part in his child’s life. Meanwhile those who want to abuse the system are getting away scot-free with not having to pay child support for 18 years, and no Government is doing anything about it. I find the whole thing completely irresponsible, and this bill is just a token measure. It will not address those deep and difficult issues. We need a Government tough on welfare fraud in order to do that.

I rise on behalf of United Future members who will be supporting this bill, but I particularly want to speak to an amendment that I have proposed to clause 7. This bill enables the rate of benefit paid to solo parents to be reduced if they fail or refuse to identify the other parent of the child, make an application for assessment of child support, or give all information required under the Child Support Act. It is often forgotten in this debate, however, that penalties under section 70A of that Act are not all about refusing to name the father. Even if everyone knows who the liable parent is, the custodial parent may still face a penalty if he or she fails or refuses to make an application for assessment of child support. This amendment allows the State to file for child support if the identity of the other parent is known but the sole parent refuses to apply for child support. It draws on powers available under section 61C of the principal Act, which allows officers of the department to act on behalf of the beneficiary in any proceedings under the Child Support Act. In these situations the issue is not who is liable; it is about whether that person should be made liable.

Absent parents not only deny their children their presence in their home, but also their associated financial contribution. Research by the Ministry of Social Development indicates that there are three common reasons why solo parent beneficiaries do not apply for child support even though the identity of the liable parent is not in question. One reason is that if the liable parent is in a position to pay, and is willing to pay more than the penalty in support of his or her child, it can be in the solo parent’s beneficial financial interest to have a direct payment from the liable parent rather than to make an application for child support.

Apparently both Work and Income and Inland Revenue Department staff often point out this loophole to solo parent beneficiaries when they are making a decision about whether to apply for child support. In some cases this private financial arrangement is a specific trade-off for not applying for child support. Another reason relates to benefit fraud. If a solo parent beneficiary is living with the liable parent, he or she may be reluctant to initiate a process that might lead officials to match their addresses. It is also not in their interests for child support to be deducted from the household income, even if they can avoid being found out. If the liable parent is also on a benefit, then it is much more likely that the nature of their relationship would be discovered through an application for child support. The final reason is a reluctance amongst some people, especially beneficiaries, to deal with State agencies—something that an application for child support would inevitably involve.

Clearly, none of these are particularly compelling reasons not to seek some form of child support from the liable parent. Secret arrangements may mean that, in reality, the child is being supported by the liable parent, but the system of child support is there to ensure that liable parents are held financially responsible for their children. This is, after all, a social security bill, and this amendment proposes that the State should be able to step in to secure the child’s interests. United Future will be looking towards the other parties to support this amendment.

Part 1 covers a wide range of issues, but it appears from the debate so far that the issue that is attracting most of the attention is one that has had a fair amount of media coverage over the years—that is, section 70A of the Social Security Act. That section provides for the reduction in the benefit of a person who will not provide the name of the father of a child, and therefore people avoid paying their child liability payments.

I thank New Zealand First for its usual very insightful contribution to the debate. I also thank United Future for its contribution and advise its spokesperson on social services, Judy Turner, through Mr Adams, that although its proposal today to see a change in the bill came in so late—it will be out of order, I think—the issue is one that we will make sure we work on together, probably in the Child Support Amendment Bill later in the piece.

I return to the contributions from National and ACT. Perhaps I will leave aside ACT’s contribution, because that party will probably not be in Parliament after the election, and just come back to Mrs Collins, who, for someone who is supposed to be National’s spokesperson, demonstrates once again a staggering inability to know what is going on in these portfolios. The National Party, apart from once again offering no obvious answer to any of the issues, appears to have no policy on the issues whatsoever. Its contributions just become a long-running diatribe about people who should be responsible for their children. We heard nothing else from Mrs Collins and, thankfully, she stopped. I do not know about the rest of the Committee, but I usually enjoy it when she is quiet.

I tell Mrs Collins, for her own edification, that section 70A of the principal Act is being changed to the extent that the penalty imposed on parents by this bill essentially inflation-protects the Crown’s interest. Children are involved here, and the reason that the domestic purposes benefit is paid into a household is so that they can eat, be well supported, have the lights on, stay warm, and go to school—all of those kinds of things. Penalties, therefore, have to be provided for in a way that takes account of the fact that we still want children to be well supported financially in those households. We do not want to punish them. That is what makes these kinds of issues so difficult. Yes, it would be very easy simply to adopt an approach whereby we remove the money from the households of people who do not agree to name the father of their children, but the impact on the children would be that they simply would not be supported. A penalty is therefore being put in place, and we asked that it be at a level that not only allows the children to continue to be fed properly but also gives a clear signal to a person who does not provide the name of the father that things are not the way they should be.

It is my view, and the Government’s view, that fathers must, and should, be responsible financially and emotionally for their children throughout their lives. One of the issues we inherited from the National Government was that nothing had been done about this issue through the 1990s. The numbers continued to grow and they maxed out at around 20,000 fathers. The entire Chamber knows that some fathers will never be involved in the emotional and financial support of their children, and they should not be. We are talking about exemptions in the Act for things like incest. We do not want to see those fathers involved, and if anybody in the Chamber thinks that such fathers are the kinds of fathers who should be in touch with their children, then that is up to them. But that is not the Government’s view. Our view is that the bulk of the people currently who are not naming themselves as the father of a child do not have that excuse. They simply are not carrying out their financial obligations to their children.

So what is the answer? Well, Mrs Collins and the National Party do not have one. However, when the Government undertook a long programme of research on a large sample of people within this group, it found that one of the major problems was that people simply did not understand the fact that they were being penalised financially, and they did not understand how they could go about the process of naming the father once they had settled in to being a mother and getting on with their life—after they had gotten through all that part of settling in to being the parent of the child. We have run a very successful process that—as of 1 April, I am told by officials—now sees the number of people in that situation as being 16,130. In other words, since we started introducing the real change the number has dropped—and the penalty, as Mrs Newman points out, is not the real change but is simply to remind people that there is a financial penalty. It is no wonder that Mrs Newman and the ACT party are polling 1.7 percent.

Every answer that ACT gives to these kinds of issues is usually blunt and unthinking. The real answer is what we are doing. We are now talking to people before they go on to the domestic purposes benefit. We then go back to them 3 months after they have been on it, if they have not named the father of the child. We are finding, with those two kinds of interviews, a substantial change in the behaviour of people who understand. Mrs Newman pointed out that people may say that their partner is dead, but she offered no solution as to what to do about it. I do not know the answer as to whether a person is lying to us, either, other than to try to find out through the means we are using. But we have found that many of the people who are interviewed, who are re-interviewed, and who are informed of the obligation people have to provide support for their children do tell us the name of the father.

So it would be useful, I guess, if Mrs Collins and the National Party—and I see Mrs Pansy Wong is about to rise on behalf of the National Party—were to stay in touch with the policy, because it would find that it is working and that we are now seeing a steady and continuous drop in the number of people who are not naming themselves as father of the child, and those people are now paying their child liability payments. That is why those who have thought this issue through, such as Mr Gudgeon from New Zealand First and Mr Adams and Judy Turner from United Future, are supporting this bill. They recognise that this amendment is simply one part of a comprehensive answer that is, finally, after many years of failure by the National Party, beginning to get men to front up to their obligations and pay their child liability payments.

That is the bottom line for me. Men must support their children financially and emotionally throughout their lives. They must not walk away from those obligations. For the first time we have now found a successful way of turning back the numbers. We are seeing major progress, and I want to see that progress continue.

I was wondering whether I should quote the honourable John Tamihere from Investigate but the Minister who has just sat down reminded me how accurate was the picture painted by the honourable John Tamihere. He said that after one met with the Hon Steve Maharey for half an hour, although he sounded smarmy and intelligent he made absolutely no sense. There was no substance or solution in his contribution. I was totally confused after the Minister’s 10-minute contribution, but I do encourage him to take more calls to explain himself.

Firstly, he explained to the public that the legislation he brought in was meant to fix the problem of mothers not naming the fathers of their children, then in the same breath he said that it would not. He also believed that the legislation would not achieve that aim. I would like the Minister to take another call to say that you have just explained to the Committee that you never intended this legislation to—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Please do not bring the Chair into the debate. Please refer to him as the Minister.

The Minister has just said to the Committee that in his mind clause 7 does not achieve the aim of getting mothers to name the fathers of their children. Is he trying to dupe the public into believing that bringing in this legislation would indeed solve the problem? I am very confused by the Minister, who has just made the statement that clause 7 would not address what the bill sets out to do.

The Minister claims that the real solution lies outside the scope of this legislation. If the policy or action of the department is so effective, why are political parties being asked to debate this legislation? It simply does not make sense. For the Minister’s information, the National Party, or his so-called “Mrs Judith Collins’ National Party”, has an effective policy.

I also suggest to the Committee that the only reason why the Minister even attempted to address the serious issue that fathers should be made responsible for looking after their children is due to the National Party leader, Dr Don Brash, raising the issue in Ōrewa this year. He wants to make sure that children have the best care and that both parents are made to be emotionally responsible or, at least, financially responsible for their children. I assure members of the public that they need have no worries, as the incoming National Government, we will bring in comprehensive social welfare reform, and as part of that we will make sure that fathers will definitely get the message and will be made to be partly responsible for the upbringing of their children in New Zealand. We got the impression from the contribution from the Minister, the Hon Steve Maharey, that he will never do that.

However, National supports this bill for the very simple reason that at least it is an acknowledgment that fathers should be made responsible. It is a very small step and it needs an incoming National Government to make sure that the rest of the comprehensive social welfare policy is put in place to ensure the substance of what we are trying to address here will be addressed. I welcome the Minister taking more calls to give the public and people like myself a very clear statement that, indeed, clause 7 will be implemented by his department.

It is a bit rich that the Minister can stand here and talk about a comprehensive answer to this growing problem, which he blames on the National Party even though he has been the Minister for 5 long years. When we look at the answer we say to ourselves: “Is it comprehensive?”, and the response has to be: “No”. The response has to be “No” because there is no attempt by this Government to get underneath the problem and to address what is causing this escalation in the number of women who are not naming the fathers of their children. The answer comes back to two things. The first is the very unfair child support system, which the Labour Party has refused to fix. As I understand it, Michael Cullen drafted the original child support legislation, and in the early 1990s the National Government introduced that legislation. The Child Support Act has been fraught with problems from the word go. A review was done in 1994 by Judge Trapski, and he recommended some very significant changes to the way the Act worked, but no Government has actually addressed those problems, including the Labour Party. But if Labour wanted to get to the bottom of the problem of mothers refusing to name the fathers of their children, it would have to agree that a punitive Child Support Act, which is really very unfair on many fathers—not all fathers, but on many—is one of the reasons why some fathers are unwilling to have their name put on a birth certificate.

But rather than trying to address the Child Support Act and make it fair, which I believe should be the responsibility of a Government, the Minister has introduced this Clayton’s bill, which is destined to hide those numbers. He stands here and tells us the numbers have come down, but I would like to know how many exemptions are being granted, because the bill does provide for women to produce reasons for not having to name the father. It would be interesting to know whether the fall in numbers is because many exemptions are being granted or, as the Minister claimed, because women now realise their obligation to name the father and are doing so. I would like to have more details, because that does not appear to have been provided for in the bill.

Many fathers are being excluded from their children’s lives, because of the way the custody laws work in New Zealand. This Parliament will be aware that I have put forward two member’s bills to try to introduce shared parenting into our New Zealand family law. All of the research that I have done tells me that when mums and dads are equally responsible for their children after a relationship breaks down, the fathers are more than willing to pay child support and do everything they can to support their children. Where we have laws that exclude fathers, very definitely like our custodial laws do at the present time, many fathers say: “Well, I’m not going to be involved with those children.” It is the kids who miss out. If the Minister is honest when he says he wants to see fathers involved in their children’s lives, why has he not helped to introduce shared parenting or some form of law change to allow fathers to play a very big part in the lives of their children when a couple separate?

If the Minister has read any of the research he will know that New Zealand is facing the biggest crisis of fatherlessness of any generation, and that the problems are showing up in the Youth Courts and in the schools, because some of these kids are not learning or engaging properly. That is a problem that this Minister should be fixing.

The amendment to clause 7 in the name of the honourable member Paul Adams is out of order. Twenty-four hours’ notice was not given of an amendment that may have had an impact on Government fiscal aggregates.