Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill

The Green Party continues to oppose this bill, the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill, because of what it does, both in theory and practice, to single parents on the domestic purposes benefit. The practical side of it is that the Government, supported, not surprisingly, by the National Party and by some other parties, is going to increase by $6 a week the penalty against those sole parents who fail or refuse to identify in law the other parent of their child. Although, indeed, as a number of members have pointed out repeatedly in the debate, this is a token amount, it is also $6 a week being taken from some of the poorest families in New Zealand. I find it incomprehensible that the Hon Steve Maharey finds it so important to increase penalties like this, when his own ministry has done research showing the real extent of child poverty in this country, and that single-parent families are clearly those most affected; and also that his own ministry, in a background paper given to the Social Services Committee, actually said at one point that “harsher policy measures would not be effective for the majority of this group”. The Minister does appear to be ignoring the advice and the research carried out by his own staff on this matter. As a result, on the practical side of it, we see a further $6 a week being removed from some family budgets. On the theoretical side, we have a Government that is so keen to undercut Dr Don Brash and Dr Muriel Newman on welfare policies that it feels somehow obliged to make some show at least of increasing penalties against people on the domestic purposes benefit.

I really do not understand why Labour has to feel it is in a race with the right to capture the exact same pool of voters who demonise beneficiaries. Labour has done a lot of good things in the area of social welfare, although nowhere near enough, mind you. For example, increasing the personal support offered to domestic purposes benefit recipients, ending forced work for the dole for unemployed and other beneficiaries, and moving to improve the culture of Work and Income have all been positive steps forward. Why Mr Maharey has to take two steps forward and one step back is most puzzling. Surely his party and its union and community sector supporters should have the confidence to keep working proactively for positive changes in the welfare area, instead of every so often coming up with a little doozy like this, or the no-go zones of Jobs Jolt, the abolition of the special benefit as part of the Working for Families package, and so on.

It has been more than two decades now since the era of Rogernomics began, with the onset of mass structural unemployment deliberately created by a former Labour Government, then later entrenched by things like National’s benefit cuts, market rents for State houses, and the Employment Contracts Act. Labour has seen clearly enough that the Employment Contracts Act had to be thrown out and income-related rents reintroduced for State housing. However, for some reason, when it comes to the benefit system and beneficiaries, it cannot quite bring itself to go that extra step towards a clean break with the beneficiary-bashing of the past.

Beneficiary numbers are coming down. Good work is being done on improving the availability of childcare and out-of-school care to make it easier for parents to go out to work. It was great to see Labour supporting my colleague Sue Kedgley’s Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill in the House last week, as it should if it is serious about helping mothers and fathers cope with the real-life demands of balancing work and bringing up babies and young children at the same time. Why then, in terms of the benefit system, does Labour have to go ahead with clause 7 of this bill in its current form? Nearly all the submitters to the select committee asked for the penalty clause to be taken out. The Green Party certainly wants it taken out. It is a mere $6 a week but it is $6 that families on the domestic purposes benefit can ill do without, on top of the $22 or more that they are already losing as a penalty. The mere fact that it is such a token amount almost adds insult to injury, making it even clearer that what this is really about is moral judgements, not economics.

It seems to me that what the Government is actually saying in this bill is that a mother is committing a moral crime if she cannot, or will not, name the father of her child. From the department’s own research, as offered to the select committee, it appears that the three most common reasons for this happening are: first, actions taken by the other parent—for example, in denying paternity or disappearing when advised of the pregnancy; second, the mother not knowing who the father was—for example, because of casual relationships, multiple relationships, and/or the effects of drugs and alcohol; and, third, a parent who might be trying to avoid the other parent having contact with or rights over that child.

In all those circumstances, it is clear that the citizens of regular society can find many opportunities to make moral judgments about these mothers. But is that what a Government—any Government—should be doing? Penalising women who are going to live with the results of, for example, a drunken one-night stand for the rest of their lives and their children’s lives comes out of the same psychology as those who would still like to see young sole parents pressured into giving up their babies for adoption, or the domestic purposes benefit done away with altogether because, so to speak, it only encourages them.

In reality, our country needs children, and it needs parents who are willing to bring up their children with love and care, no matter what the circumstances of their conception. I have argued this before, and people do not like it, but it does seem to me that the logical extension of the arguments behind this bill that some people make about penalising sole parents in these kinds of circumstances are basically that in the end they are saying it would be better for women to have abortions than to give birth to children conceived as a result of these kinds of circumstances, because of their supposed immoral provenance.

I reject all this. Every child born in this country should be a wanted child, and every child conceived should have the best possible chance in life. Mothers in difficult circumstances who make the big decision to go ahead with a pregnancy rather than have a termination should be supported and nurtured, not condemned. A truly compassionate Government would remove all penalties for not naming the father and do everything it could to support the parent and the child or children involved, not the opposite. Children conceived and born in these kinds of situations need more help and support from all of those around them and from the State, not less.

The Green Party believes that these are big social problems, and we are not trying to run away from them. What we are saying is that the solutions are different. They would be better dealt with through things like reforming the Child Support Act, more in-depth education at an earlier age for schoolchildren about the realities of becoming a parent, better support to the groups that work with mothers and fathers in these kinds of situations, and things like the reintroduction of a universal child benefit, once the old family benefit, that would assist all families, but particularly those living in comparative poverty, rather than selectively penalising some of them, as this bill does.

I am pleased to speak to this bill. It ensures fairness and security, and it makes quite significant amendments to the social security system. One of the advantages that will come to people from this bill is the extended eligibility for the accommodation supplement. We will be ensuring that benefit applicants who work for part of the year are not financially disadvantaged, as seasonal workers often are—that is another advantage for communities—and we are changing the regime to encourage sole parents to establish paternity for their children or apply for child support.

This Government has historically supported, and will always support, one-parent families when they cannot support themselves financially, but we do expect the other parent to contribute to the costs of the child. I might be old-fashioned, but I always thought that that was what being a parent was all about.

National supports this bill, because even though it falls short of comprehensively addressing serious issues in regard to social welfare, there are at least some positives, which is a bit of a surprise. The tremendous amount of work and cooperation undertaken by the Social Services Committee has been acknowledged. It is good that there is some provision for eligibility for the accommodation supplement for residents of retirement villages who have a licence to occupy, and that the bill ensures that they are treated consistently in terms of access to financial assistance. One can only assume that the estimated number of retirement village residents expected to quality, as identified by the Minister as being 200 to 300 persons, is reasonably accurate.

It is good that benefit stand-down rules are now vastly improved, to improve incentives for people on benefits to undertake seasonal and other short-term employment. I am sure that that is one element of the bill that will be wholeheartedly welcomed not just by persons on a benefit wanting to undertake part-time work, wanting to continue to have some form of independence without being penalised, and wanting to work part-time without costing them more and discouraging real effort to find work. I am sure that employers will welcome an opportunity to employ local people who may be on a benefit and who are discouraged from seeking employment.

This bill goes some way to address the fact that it actually costs more to work part-time and that therefore it is not worthwhile to seek work. Hopefully, that issue will be addressed effectively through the bill, and National welcomes that move. As many will no doubt be aware, part-time workers are hard to come by, and it is to be hoped that there will be a marked improvement in this situation for the many orchards and pack-houses, particularly in my Coromandel electorate but also throughout the rest of New Zealand. Staff are becoming increasingly more and more difficult to get, particularly on a part-time basis.

I come now to the next provision in the bill, as stated by the Hon Steve Maharey. He said that the bill also puts into effect changes to the regime that encourages sole parents to establish paternity for their children and apply for child support. Quite clearly, Mr Maharey listened to and read the excellent work done by the National Party. But why is it that from 1 April 2006 any parent who does not name the other parent, be it a mother or father, will lose $6 a week from their benefit—the Greens are actually horrified about that—but that the family support package, which also kicks in on that day, gives that parent $25 extra a week for the first child and $15 extra a week for the second child? We see for that first child a net gain of $19.

One has to wonder why the Greens are opposing that provision when it puts more in the pocket of the person who is on the benefit. Where is there any incentive to name the other parent, when instead of being $6 worse off, one is, in fact, $19 better off for the first child, and a full $15 better off for every subsequent child? In actual fact, one could say that there was an incentive for increasing that dependency instead of a deterrent for single-parent dependency.

This Government has, once again, failed in its responsibility to provide sound policy and to exhibit some sense of fiscal capability. But, then, we are continually made aware of the lack of fiscal understanding and capability of this Government. The provisions in this bill in relation to the naming of a parent have the real possibility of seeing the number of unnamed parents actually increase. Perhaps Dr Michael Cullen might like to pay a bit more attention to the legislation being promulgated by his party. One has only to look at the exemptions to see the distinct possibility. First, if a parent claims that the other parent is violent, naming does not have to take place. There is actually an incentive for the parent to be a little violent and therefore not be required to be named. The second exemption is more significant—

💬 Jill Pettis: Explain that again. We missed something.

Well, I suggest that member reads the bill, as well. If a parent claims that there is no hope of the other parent ever paying for his or her children, then, once again, he or she can be exempt from liability. Cry poor and one is off the hook. Third, claim the other parent is dead, and they are off the hook. It is patently ridiculous. How could there possibly be any exemption for having to name a dead person? After all, one should be required to name to clarify that the person is, in fact, dead. How bizarre can one get? That is a fine example of the lack of the practical understanding in the application of the law. [Interruption] I would strongly recommend that those members go back and look at the bill and refer to the Hansard.

I wholeheartedly support my most excellent colleague Judith Collins when she says that it is a child’s right to know who his or her parents are, and that when we take away that right, we take it not from the father but from the child. My most excellent colleague Judith Collins has now also clarified that of the 40,000 women who refuse to name the fathers of their children—and we must remember that there are a number of men who have refused to name the mothers of their children—there are now more than 11,000 liable parents said to be living in Australia. What is the Government doing to recoup some of that loss of support for those children? It is worth reminding the New Zealand public that under the current Government the number of unnamed parents has increased by some 20-odd thousand, with some three women a day refusing to name the fathers of their children.

I do not see that there is any way in which this bill actually curbs or controls that in any way. There will be valid reason for not naming in some cases, but for others who have multiple partners and do not know who the fathers are, some mandatory DNA tests would be a proactive and cost-effective measure to identify parents who are liable for child support. Innocent men accused of being fathers, when they know they are not, should also be accorded access to free DNA testing to ensure that they are not unjustly named.

I rise in support of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. I wonder whether we have just heard another policy announcement from Sandra Goudie, future front-bencher for the National Party, that it will now remove the exemptions for domestic violence, for mothers on the domestic purposes benefit who do not want to name the father of their child. I do not think there is a member in this House, outside the National Party, who would think that there are women who will deliberately continue to have children, then claim violence, and have the father want to claim violence so that his name is not on the birth certificate.

The other thing that was raised in the Committee stage was the issue of whether, if a mother had said that the father had died, the Ministry of Social Development could check that that was the case. We were told in no uncertain terms that it was not an issue.

One of the most important things this Government has done, under the Hon Steve Maharey in this portfolio, is to move to individual case management for the domestic purposes benefit. That has been a crucial change, because a blanket rule cannot address every single situation. One of the things the Ministry of Social Development has done is to let mothers know that they are being penalised for not naming the father of their child. That is very important, because a lot of mothers did not realise that in the first place. I support the bill and I commend it to the House.

New Zealand First supports this bill. That is not to say that we do not have some reservations. We have some strong reservations concerning clause 7, headed “Rates of benefits for sole parents may be reduced”. We do not accept, as the honourable member who has just resumed her seat does, that claiming violence should be the total excuse to allow fathers to be exempt. Let me make this quite clear: young children need their fathers. The taxpayer is entitled to know who the fathers are, or who the father is, in a particular instance. We do not swallow, hook, line, and sinker, the line the member has just espoused. Some women cannot name the father, because frankly, they have had too many liaisons. They simply do not know who hit the jackpot. Other women do not name the father because they get a pay-off from the father. They lose $6 in one hand, and, as Sandra Goudie illustrated quite well, they get another $20-something, so there is a net gain of $19. But equally so, and I am aware of this occurring, some fathers will say: “Don’t name me and I will give you something extra.”, and that occurs in this country.

💬 Darren Hughes: Three percent.

Members are saying 3 percent, and the Minister says I’m dreaming.

💬 Hon Annette King: You’re dreaming that anyone would have a baby for $20 a week.

I am not dreaming that a woman would have a baby for 20 bucks a week. I am saying that the Minister should listen a little bit to what other people are saying in this House. There are people who will have a cash advantage because the father will say: “Look, don’t name me and I will give you some extra.”

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Name them.

I could name one lady who came to me. I can see that the Government, particularly the Minister of Finance, thinks that this is a frivolous idea. By the look on his face, he thinks that fathers should be exempt. He thinks it is a bit of a joke that the good old taxpayer will pick up the responsibility.

💬 Darren Hughes: Name one.

Let me say to members, and to the member interjecting, who is probably too young to be a father yet, that if we took some DNA swabs we could find out who the father is, was, has been, or whatever. We should be using modern technology to save the taxpayer some financial burden.

As I said at the beginning, New Zealand First is strongly in favour of all children knowing who their father is—good, bad, or indifferent. Sooner or later, when youngsters grow up they want to know where they have come from. We believe that there is an opportunity here to deliver that message home—that a particular child’s father is so and so. If he is an awful sod, so be it, but the child is entitled to know. Equally so, the taxpayer is entitled to know and to hold the father to account for some of the responsibilities of the upbringing of that youngster.

We take it seriously. The Government may take it as a joke, but we take it seriously. People in this country are ripping off the taxpayer, left, right, and centre, and this bill provides another loophole. Having said that, New Zealand First will support this bill. It is a move in the right direction, but it is not the complete answer. It is disappointing to us that the Government cannot see the complete answer. It is staring it in the face. The answer is to use modern technology to determine who the fathers are. New Zealand First will support the bill.

I rise in support of the third reading of this bill. In addition to the changes around child support, there are two other important areas in which the bill makes changes. Firstly, it extends eligibility for the accommodation supplement to residents of retirement villages, where increasing numbers of our people are living. Secondly, the bill makes important changes for seasonal workers, allowing them to nominate either a 52 week or a 26-week earning period. I think that that will assist a lot of people, as well. For those two reasons alone, I support the third reading of the bill.