Collins Judith: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15816] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 There have been some very interesting speeches in this debate this afternoon—none of them from the Labour Party unfortunately. I particularly enjoyed the contributions from New Zealand First ACT United Future and the Greens as well as Katherine Rich’s contribution for National. I mention the Greens because although I do not agree with everything they say—in fact not a lot—at least Ms Bradford’s comments have some logic to them. She has done her homework and she does not just twitter on about nothing as the last speaker did. Certainly most of us are finding it quite bizarre that having heard a speech from Jill Pettis—it was the longest speech I have ever heard from her—we have absolutely no idea what she was talking about. I do not think any of us do. It was something about morals. 
There is an old saying—and it is becoming increasingly true—that it is a wise child who knows its own father. That is increasingly true in this country. It is a shame. It is not about money. Certainly Ms Rich made it obvious that National will support this bill going to the select committee not because we think it is a fantastic bill—we do not—but because we think there are issues here that need to be raised and looked at thoroughly. Hopefully we will get back something that is a bit better. The reason it is not just about money is that we are talking about $6 per week. I know that $6 per week is a lot of money if one does not have it I know that it is a lot of money if one does not have enough money to buy shoes for one’s children and I know that it is a lot of money when one has to decide which of one’s children will get what. Having said that I say that money is the easiest thing we can give children. It is also the thing that gives them the least in terms of what they need. It is the easiest thing for parents to give children. There are lots of parents in this country who give very little to their children other than money. One is not a good parent just because one gives ones children some money and one is not a bad parent just because one does not have an awful lot of money to give. Children need an awful lot more than money. They need a tremendous amount of commitment. They need love understanding and education. They need a warm bed and someone to care. Giving $6 per week to a child’s mother does not amount to caring or not caring. 
We have been told this afternoon that close on 20000 mothers in this country cannot or will not name the father of their children. I do not believe for a moment—and I do not believe that anyone in the House would believe—that 20000 women in this country did not bother to ask: “Hey mate what’s your name?” before they decided to have a child with that particular man. I do not believe for a moment that 20000 mothers did not have enough nous to say: “Oi mate what’s your name?”. I also do not believe for a moment that 35000 children in this country do not have a clue who their father might be. That is a staggering number of children when we look at the fact that we are talking about 20000 mothers. There must be an awful lot of twins born in this country or else the mothers again forgot to ask the man’s name the next time they decided to have a child with a particular sperm donor father. 
I am pleased there are some exemptions in the bill to the rules about that but I also say that those exemptions are not necessarily the right exemptions nor given for the right reasons. I do not say that because I do not care about mothers who live in abusive relationships—certainly not. I say that because it is a child’s right to know his or her parents. It is absolutely fundamental to children that they know the names of their parents—more than that that they know their father and mother. Whether children always live with their mother and father is an absolutely different issue but every child has that right. Recently we looked at a Supplementary Order Paper introduced by my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison. It related to children born as a result of sperm donation being able to find out the name of their father and something about him. This issue is the same: children must know. It is the same with adoptions; we find that adopted children who do not know their birth father or birth mother often have an absolute need whether they are 10 20 40 or 50 years old to know where they come from. 
I was a lawyer before I came to Parliament. I dealt with fathers—I will call them middle-class fathers because they earned significant amounts of money—who said to me that they were going to be the father of a child. One particular father said he had arranged with the mother of the child that he would not be named on the birth certificate. I can remember looking at that man who must have been 40 and who was having his first child—that he knew of—and asking why he would not be named. He said that he and the mother had arranged it so that he would give her some cash and she could get the domestic purposes benefit. This is not just an issue for people on low incomes; this issue goes right through our society. A whole stack of men are being told they do not need to care. They do not need to care that in a couple of generations when some child is looking up his or her ancestry the child will find a great big vacant space where that father’s name should be. They do not care about the message that that gives to their own children—when they are adults and become parents themselves—about the value of parenthood. 
So I support this legislation going to the select committee. I support it because it does little other than to send a signal—that is the only thing this particular provision does. It sends a signal that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has heard from the National Party ACT and some of the other parties about the need for children to have parents. He has had so many letters from people on this subject that he is having to do something. However I know that what he is doing is nothing more than sending a signal because I know that on 1 April next year—April Fool’s Day—these same people will get a pay rise despite the $6 being taken off them now. They will get an extra $19. 
But at least the bill does send a signal and that signal needs to be sent. Parents must be responsible. They must have the rights and responsibilities of parenthood. And children need both their parents. Whether or not their parents like each other children at least need to know who they are. That a mother had a relationship with a man who is violent does not mean that that man should not be named as the father of that child. I do not say that because it is his right; I say it because it is the child’s right to know. Even if children have a murderer for a father they have the right to know who their father is; that is the children’s right. The children do not need to acknowledge him particularly but it is certainly their right to know who he is and it is also the right of their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren after them. This is something we need to start taking seriously in this country: the rights of children the rights of parents but mostly the rights of families.