Newman Muriel: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Newman Muriel: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19728] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. It is interesting to reflect that as a Parliament we should treat child welfare as being of paramount importance. If we think about children and what it is that damages kids we now know that welfare harms children if it goes on too long we know that not having two parents harms children and we also know that for children not to know who their parents are damages them and damages them forever after they become adults. Previous speakers have acknowledged that. It seems to me that of all the responsibilities that Governments have the laws that deal with children are the most important responsibility. When one thinks about that and then looks at the bill that is in front of us one can say only that what the Minister for Social Development and Employment has delivered to Parliament is a sad reflection of the fact that he has not taken his responsibilities seriously enough in this area. 
When the Minister finally delivered this bill to Parliament he mentioned that 20000 women had refused to name the father of their child. He has known about this problem for 5 years. When he first learned about the problem 12000 women were refusing to name the fathers of their children. As he said that number had grown to 20000. The largest reason why women do not name the fathers of their children is not that they do not know who they are—they do—but that welfare fraud and welfare abuse is going on. Those women and their partners decide that they will not name the father so that he will not have to pay child support. I remind the House that if a father is named and has to pay child support he can have to pay up to almost half a million dollars over the time that the child is his financial responsibility. Until the child is 18 years old the father has to pay child support. Any man who is given the opportunity to pay under the table—to give the partner $100 per week or whatever it works out at—will be tempted by that unless the law is strong. The Minister knows that the law in that area has been extremely weak. All I can say is that the Minister’s lack of action and the fact that he has not brought into this House a bill that will fix the problem properly shows that he as a Minister is soft on fraud. 
It is interesting to note that we have been having a debate this week about the descriptions that Mr John Tamihere made of some of his colleagues in the Labour Party. About Mr Maharey Mr Tamihere said that he was smarmy and very clever but that he had no substance. When I look at this bill I see that it typifies a Minister of no substance. This is one of the most serious problems that New Zealand faces. Thirty-five thousand children do not know who their father is because the Government colludes with women not to name the father. Labour has delivered to this House today a bill that now gives those fathers who do not want to be named and the mothers who do not want to name them two new exemptions. It gives to any man—any casual partner who does not want to accept responsibility for raising his child or any man who wants to be a dad but who does not want to go through the child support system—two new excuses not to be named. 
If a man tells the child’s mother that he will beat her up if she names him then she will not have to name him. We already know that in that area false allegations of violence are rife. It is one of the biggest problems the Family Court faces. We already know that around New Zealand there are thousands and thousands of court orders against men who are not violent because all that a woman has to do is to claim a man is violent. Because we have had some terrible tragedies whereby people who were claimed to be violent have gone out and committed the most terrible crimes there is a very very low test for violence. Now we will find that many casual partners who do not want to pay anything will simply say that they will beat their partner up. The level of violence—perceived violence or violence being used against women—will grow. The other point the Minister made was about the other new exemption for fathers who are unlikely to pay child support. All that a man has to do is to say that he will not pay up and he will be excused. 
It is really worrying for in particular members of the Opposition and for members of Parliament who are worried about the issue of children not having their dad named on their birth certificate that those two new exemptions mean that the numbers will be hidden. We will no longer know exactly what is going on in that area. The Minister has already claimed that the number of women who do not name the father of their child has gone down from 20000 to 16000. The question that I have is: does that mean that those 4000 women all named the fathers and that the fathers will now start to pay child support or is it that the majority of them—3600 or whatever—have claimed exemptions under those two new areas? I do not know whether that is the case. I have put in parliamentary questions already but I do not know whether the Government will tell me. So I worry that this bill provides a way for the Labour Government to actually hide what is going on in this really important area. 
Bill Gudgeon raised a very very serious issue just before. Under the Labour Government’s thoughts on all this we will end up with children who are brothers and sisters first cousins or whatever marrying each other because they will not know of that relationship. Whenever the issue is raised in Parliament of children not knowing the identity of their father it is quite often picked up on talkback radio and then we hear those terrible terrible calls where a woman may call in and say that she does not know who her father is that she has spent her whole life trying to find out and that her mother will not tell her. The woman’s mother hides it and the woman says she is not whole. I think to myself that we are a Parliament and we make the laws but here we are passing a law that the Minister has had 5 years to sort out. I ask myself whether I can put my hand on my heart and say to those people out there who are worried about the fact that children do not know who their dads are that the bill we are passing today will fix that problem. I have to say that I cannot say that. This law will not fix that problem. This law may hide the problem. This law will not ensure that the problem of people who want to avoid having their names on their children’s birth certificates or who want to avoid paying child support will be fixed. This law will not fix that. Nor will this law allow for that other group of men who want their names to be on the birth certificate and who want to be dads to have that recognition. This bill will not fix that problem either. 
It is a sad day for New Zealand when we face a serious serious problem and we have a Labour Government that fails in its responsibility to give us decent legislation that will solve the problem.