Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19568] 
Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part.  
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Social Security Act 1964 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 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? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: 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 19000 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. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 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—35000. 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 19000 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—35000 children and 19000 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. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 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 2000 women had not named the father of their children. As we heard that number has grown to 19000 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 19000 women cannot name the father of their children; maybe 1000 cannot—who knows? But it is certainly nowhere near 19000. 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. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 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. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 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 20000 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 16130. 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. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 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. 
PANSY WONG 
: 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 Orewa 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. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 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 CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: 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. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 18 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Consequential amendments and savings provision 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 When I look at this part I cannot help but think of the news this morning about the 20-year-old prostitute struck down by a bullet at Hunter’s Corner Manurewa who was described as a mother of three. I cannot help but think how this part of this bill or indeed any other part will affect her children. 
 I cannot for the life of me believe that that mother has named the father of her three children and she is only 20. I cannot for the life of me believe who is looking after those children while she is out working as a prostitute on Hunters Corner Manurewa in the electorate of the Hon George Hawkins the Minister of Police. I cannot for the life of me understand what she would be making of these particular consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act. 
I understand that the Hon Steve Maharey is known as being someone with whom one can spend 2 hours and come out with screeds of paper as described by John Tamihere and still come out none the wiser because one would wonder what has been said. I do understand that. What we have here is in fact an amendment bill that is nothing more than a reminder; the first acknowledgment ever from this Government that fathers are important. This afternoon I have heard the Hon Steve Maharey in the chair speak as though fathers are important. Yet just before Christmas this year I heard the same Minister stand up and say that there were no reports that he knew of that said that children who are brought up in single-parent homes may have worse outcomes than children brought up with both their biological parents. Yet we in this House know that his statement is simply not able to be backed up by any evidence at all. We know absolutely that children who do not know their fathers or do not have anything to do with their fathers will in fact suffer. And it is not just those children who suffer; it is their children their grandchildren and their great grandchildren—it is generations to come. 
I heard Muriel Newman speak about the unfair liable parent contribution laws. She is right. But the worst thing about the liable parent contribution laws and the most unfair thing is that only 10 percent of the domestic purposes benefit is paid for by liable parents. That is the worst and most unfair thing about those laws. They do not do anything for the taxpayer. They do not do anything for the self-esteem of the really good mums who look after their kids and do a good job and it does nothing for the really good dads who try their very best and give whatever they can to their families even if they are split up. It does nothing for them. It in fact treats those good fathers as though they are fools—mugs. 
This Minister has the gall to stand up in this House and give speeches about how the numbers have come down. Well frankly it does not wash. The amount spent on the domestic purposes benefit under his watch has gone to $1.77 billion. It is a huge increase. Yet we have no excuse at all for people not to have to work in this country. There are jobs. Employers are trying to get people to stand in their shops and sell things to do anything yet there are still people—over 300000 of adult age—who will not work. I do not say they do not work—they simply will not work for a paid income. All the time in this House members will know that they get approached by mothers and fathers on the domestic purposes benefit who will work only 8 or 10 hours a week at a particular job. When we ask them why they will not work more they say they will not work more not because they want to spend more time with their children—after all their children are at school—but because they say it affects their benefit. They would rather take money from the taxpayers than they would earn it. 
That is not good enough and the Minister has stood up in Parliament and said he does not know what our policy is. Well he knows what the policy is in the National Party. It was articulated by Dr Don Brash at Orewa this year. The Minister knows it so well that the next day he came out and said: “What we’re going to do is have a single benefit.” That is what he said and that is all rubbish. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Just for the sake of the Committee I point out that Part 2 deals with consequential amendments to the Income Tax Acts. Clause 16 amends section OB 1 of the Income Tax Act of 1994 and the Income Tax Act of 2004 by removing references to the transitional retirement benefit which no longer exists. There are consequential amendments because of the transitional benefit being changed to the Health Entitlement Cards Regulations the Social Security (Period of Income Assessment) Regulations and the taxation regulations. Clause 17 “Savings in respect of tax on benefits” validates the practice of paying tax direct to the Inland Revenue Department at a grossed-up rate of income-tested benefit. 
I just mention that because one of the things I have noticed ever since Mrs Collins has been the National spokesperson on welfare is that she never quite seems to know what she is taking about. 
Darren Hughes 
: She’s like that in every portfolio. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I understand that but she has just given us another 5 minutes on Part 1 and I thought it may be helpful for the rest of the Committee to know that this part is not the part that has just been debated by the member. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on Part 2 of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill which deals with the consequential amendments to the Income Tax Acts. Of course whenever we have any bill that changes the way the benefit system is being dealt with then of course it does have profound implications for the tax laws. While we are thinking about those issues it does occur to me to say that the statistics report that the Minister released I think this morning about the way benefits have changed over the last while shows that the domestic purposes benefit is now costing more than ever before in New Zealand’s whole history. If we think about the cost of benefits to taxpayers and the tax implications of that we realise that is one reason of course why this country is taxed so highly. It is why the Labour Government put the top tax rate up from 33c in the dollar to 39c in the dollar and it is why increasing numbers of New Zealanders find that they are now paying the top rate of tax in spite of the Prime Minister’s assurances that it would hit only a small number of New Zealanders. 
Of course I suppose that in a roundabout way one could say that that is why Labour has introduced the Working for Families package—it has been taking so much money off working families that it feels it has to give something back to them in election year. The interesting thing is that that package which the Labour Government proclaimed with such great fanfare as being probably the best thing since the introduction of the welfare State by Michael Joseph Savage turns out to be little more than an inflation adjustment. When the Labour Party came into power it inherited a certain raft of benefits that were paid to families with children and instead of adjusting those benefits as inflation crept up over the last 5 years it left them unchanged. So families were slipping further and further behind. This great package that has had all the fanfare—including $17 million being spent on television advertising with great family-type photographs—simply puts the levels of support to families with children back to what they were in 1999 when Labour took over. I think that is just about the biggest scandal in the Labour Government given all the fanfare and all the money that has been wasted on trying to advertise a package that does not even have to be applied for. 
While we are talking about the tax implications of this bill I think taxpayers out there should be aware that the domestic purposes benefit now costs more than ever before in our history and that this bill in front of Parliament right now is meant to bring in—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member sitting on your right the Minister over there is yelling so loudly that I think it is the Minister who is actually preventing you from hearing the debate clearly. 
Hon Annette King 
: What’s the point of order? 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: The point of order is that the Minister should pipe down. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A point of order is to be heard in silence. Members have been here in this Chamber long enough to know that. I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 56/1 which states that interjections are to be rare reasonable and relevant. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: When we consider the consequential amendments to the Income Tax Acts we have to remember that the whole reason for this bill is to increase the level of child support that is collected in New Zealand from fathers who should be paying their financial dues so that the cost of the domestic purposes benefit can come down. But the reality is that under this Labour Government that cost has continued to rise so Labour is doing something wrong. It is soft on welfare policies which results in more women going on the domestic purposes benefit at a time when New Zealand is crying out for workers. Most of those women would be far better off – provided they have children of school age – if they were back out in the workforce. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a call with slight apprehension in case there is a barrage of interjections. The lack of courtesy shown by the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey was quite scary. Dr Muriel Newman was trying to make some very valid points which we could all benefit from hearing. Instead I was struggling to hear the reasonable arguments put forward by that ACT party member. Labour members have shown that as usual they have no time for anybody whose opinions differ from theirs and show no courtesy to fellow members of parliament. 
I have just learnt from the Minister’s 10-minute call on Part 1 that what he proposes in terms of the penalty for a mother not 
naming the father of a child will not work. Now in Part 2 we are being asked to look at amendments—additional changes—that have to be made to the income tax legislation. Well the House had a painful job just last year passing the Income Tax Act which is over a thousand pages long and which for the first time consolidates all the various income tax amendments into one single statute. All the tax practitioners out there were just about to breathe a sigh of relief and the poor staff at the Inland Revenue Department were saying that at long last there was one statute of a thousand pages and they could get on with the job but what has the Government done? It has introduced legislation that not only will not do what the Government wants it to do—as we were told by the Minister—but also will complicate the Inland Revenue Department’s work. 
Actually it is quite interesting because on the one hand Part 1 introduces a penalty of a reduction in the benefit of $6—which actually is not going to punish anybody—but on the other hand the Inland Revenue Department has been told to administer the Working for Families package brought in by the Labour Government which actually increases the benefit. Not only will the penalty not make people behave in the way that is intended; in effect the bill is doubling the workload of the Inland Revenue Department. The benefit introduced through the Working for Families package probably more than compensates for the $6 penalty. 
The Government continues to tell the public that it is serious about reducing compliance costs throughout the private sector and the public sector but this legislation is actually increasing those costs. We all know that when the Inland Revenue Department has more work the Government introduces more staff the public sector grows bigger and eventually guess who has to pay for all of it? So I really think the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey should think carefully about why he has introduced this legislation in the first place which will not do what he intends it to do and will actually introduce more complications into the income tax legislation. 
The other thing we learnt is that in promoting the Working for Families package the Inland Revenue Department by itself has to design a policy about alerting people to those benefits. I want the Minister to take a call and say whether he would devote attention to publicising the intention of this legislation to ensure that a mother names the father of her child in the same dedicated manner as the Government is allocating over $20 million to promote the Working for Families package. Why is there uneven treatment in terms of promoting the policy? Would the Minister take a call and say how much he has allocated to promote the intention of this legislation? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that Part 2 stand part. All those in favour— 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. From where I was sitting it looked as though Muriel Newman was seeking the call. She was standing. You were not looking around. I am sure the member wished to take a call on this part and I ask that she be given the opportunity to do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am happy to do that but I did not hear the member call. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I did call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am happy to do that. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman and I thank Mr Tisch for his help as well. I did want to take a further call because given that we are talking about tax in Part 2 of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill I want to alert the Committee to the fact that the statistical report the Minister released this morning identified exactly how much tax it costs New Zealanders to pay for benefits. It costs $23 million a day to pay for welfare benefits in New Zealand. That is almost $1 million an hour under a Labour Government that is meant to have done something about welfare. We know that beneficiary numbers have risen dramatically. We find that although in fact the number of unemployed people is down the numbers of people going on to the sickness and invalids benefits have increased dramatically by almost 40 percent since Labour has been in power and the number of people who have been on a benefit for more than 4 years has gone from 95000 to 108000 so we are in a situation whereby taxpayers have to pay $23 million a day in welfare. When the economy turns down which we all know it will—because those things are cyclical—then the number of unemployed people will grow and welfare will become an enormous problem for New Zealand. 
The Minister in the chair Steve Maharey has had an opportunity to fix the welfare system. He has had 5 years to put in place some proper welfare reform policies which would have brought all the numbers down not just the unemployment figure—and the unemployment number tends to go down because people want to better themselves find jobs and get off welfare and into work. To help people on the sickness invalids and domestic purposes benefits takes a bit of initiative gumption and leadership from a Minister. I say to the Minister that he has been a complete disappointment to New Zealand because those tough areas have really been left. This bill is a Clayton’s bill. Sure beneficiary numbers will come down but the Minister knows that he is not actually fixing the problem. He knows that in his heart. 
 I would have liked to see Labour instead of being soft on welfare actually sort out the problems in the system that allow far too much abuse and fraud to go on and ensure that the people who are on welfare are genuinely in need. That is what every New Zealander wants to see—instead of seeing people who could be working and should be working receive welfare day after day. That costs taxpayers money makes families struggle and does nothing at all for those people themselves or for their children and their future. It is no life to be on a benefit—it is a dead end—and this Minister condones more and more people going on to welfare. Twenty-three million dollars per day is being spent on welfare. That is $1 million per hour. By the time that this debate on this bill finishes the taxpayers of New Zealand will have spent $1 million on paying for people on welfare. In terms of the genuine people who will never be able to work nobody has a problem at all. But in terms of the people who could be working why are they not? New Zealand is crying out for workers; the labour shortage is holding the country back. On the one hand there are all those able-bodied people sitting on welfare whom the Minister is happy to pay for and on the other hand small businesses are crying out for people to come and work for them. 
There is an enormous mismatch and imbalance created by the Labour Government. Any other Government would have had the welfare numbers down and ensured that anybody who could work was working. The cost to the taxpayer would then have been at an all-time low which is logically what it should be and the country would have been in great shape. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 18 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 This Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill is an absolute example of the deep factions that are breaking out in the Labour Government. Looking at the members opposite I see there are 10 mods—and I think about the “She’s a Mod” type of thing. We have to ask whether Mr Duynhoven is a mod. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I was always a mod. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: We would say yes he is a mod. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Or is he a rocker? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: “Or is he a rocker?” asks Mr Catchpole. There are the 10 people who would support Mr Tamihere in his leadership bid. Then there are the 15 who say they are staunch but he does not really know just how staunch they are. Then there are the others whom I guess would be the tossers Mr Tamihere talks about. 
This bill is one of those examples that show the classic rifts within the Labour Government. On the one hand the bill purports to do something about the absolute trauma for the 33000 children who do not have a named father on their birth certificates yet whose mothers are claiming the domestic purposes benefit—33000 children to 19000 mothers. This bill states it will do something about it but when we look at the detail of it we see that—just as with that other half of the Labour caucus whom Mr Tamihere terms “tossers”—what the Government wants is for nothing actually to change because the party of those members opposite depends on people being at the bottom of the social economic heap and those members know that. It is just one of those little things. 
I can imagine United Future members thinking this is a great bill because it actually acknowledges for the first time under this Government that maybe fathers are important. Yet—just as Mr Tamihere says—because of some clauses in the bill a few little words suddenly it does not mean much. The $6 per week that is to be the little bit being taken from beneficiaries’ total income—whether they have three four five six or 10 children by three four five six or 10 different fathers—is being replaced by a big lump of extra money provided under another bill. That is how this Government operates: it gives taxpayers’ money with one hand takes it away with the other and at the same time tries to keep all its various factions in hand. 
I can see the honourable member Georgina Beyer looking as though all her Christmases will stop now; suddenly she knows that she will not be back in Parliament after the next election. Poor young Darren Hughes has been sitting there all day looking like he has just found out that Santa Claus does not really exist and the poor little darling looks as though he has been crying all day. This is because we now have written confirmation of something we always knew which is that the factions in the Labour Government are what has rendered it utterly useless to bring about any change in welfare. Here comes Dr Cullen and we all know about his skill with those little words and how he is able to talk coalition partners like United Future and the Greens into supporting all sorts of things that they do not really want to support. They do not realise it until it is too late; by that time they have already signed up for them. 
One of the areas that has been talked about today is the exemption for mothers who claim to fear violence from the father. Most people would accept that a mother who is being beaten up might be under a fear of violence. But when we look into this bill—it is just like all the other rubbish that Mr Maharey keeps giving us—we find that all a mother has to say is that she fears violence; there do not have to be any threats of violence and there do not have to be any complaints made to the police. There does not have to be one complaint to the police—nothing. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What do you want black eyes? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: No black eyes I say to Mr Fairbrother need to be shown and no broken bones—nothing! All she has to say is that she fears violence from the unnamed father. I am sure a lot of extra people will suddenly be saying they fear violence. When the refuge people came along to tell us all about this matter I asked them how many of these people who claim they fear violence ever take the matter to the police and the answer was none. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 In speaking in the debate on this part of the bill I would like to suggest that during the select committee process the part that received the most attention from submitters to the Social Services Committee was indeed clause 7 which allows the rate of benefit for sole parents to be further reduced should they fail or refuse to name the fathers of their children. Almost all submitters on that topic felt as the Green Party does that it is totally unacceptable to further penalise single parents—mostly mothers—who are in that situation. At the moment such beneficiaries already lose $22 a week per child from their benefits. Once this new bill becomes law that sum will go up by a further $6 a week. Although that may not sound like a lot of money to people on MPs’ salaries such as the members who are speaking here today to families that are surviving on the domestic purposes benefit every dollar counts. According to the Ministry of Social Development’s own research and according to every other study I have seen in recent years single-parent families are indeed the worst off proportionately of all family groupings in our country. So what is the Labour Government doing in deliberately increasing family poverty even by that small amount? 
The Green Party does not find it at all surprising that this bill is being supported as we have heard today by the National New Zealand First and United Future parties and is opposed only by ACT the Greens and the Maori Party—albeit for quite opposing reasons. I find it quite disturbing that a Labour Government that prides itself on its commitment to social equity seems to feel constrained to put forward clauses like this in what would otherwise be perfectly fine if rather limited reforming legislation. If clause 7 were taken out the bill would be fine and we would have no problem in supporting it. Even better would be to have a bill that did away altogether with the penalties on sole parents. 
The solutions to the issue of a woman not being able or willing to name the father of her child or children are numerous just as are the reasons for not naming the father. The Ministry of Social Development has done some research on that and reported to the select committee that as a result of interviews it carried out with over 4000 single-parent beneficiaries it found that such reasons include the other parent denying paternity or disappearing when advised of the pregnancy the beneficiary not actually knowing who the other parent was and the sole parent trying to avoid the other parent having contact with or rights over the child. Those three reasons were the main reasons for people not naming the fathers. From my point of view I believe that at a human level they are all completely understandable and a number of the social service - type groups that submitted to us made that same point over and over again. A further reason for a very small percentage of respondents in the ministry’s study not naming fathers was that the custodial parent and the liable parent had made private financial arrangements. I had thought that that figure would be a lot higher than it is but the answer to that problem again is not an increase in the penalties but a reform of the child support legislation. 
The Green Party really questions what on earth the Government thinks it is doing by lifting the penalties under section 70A of the Social Security Act. The Government is certainly not addressing the causes of people not naming the fathers of their children as can be seen by a quick glance at the ministry’s research that I have just outlined. Indeed one of the reports we were given actually states: “Harsher policy measures would not be effective for the majority of this group.” I believe that we should take quite a different approach to this kind of problem not the approach of making poor families even poorer. Solutions lie in a whole range of areas including things like providing far better and more realistic education for children and young people about what becoming a parent actually means. I think we should have that kind of education right from the time children start school and not leave it till they are about to leave school when in some cases that is far too late. We do need reforms to the Child Support Act and we do need to provide more support—not less—to all sorts of single-parent families. 
Labour is doing some good things for single parents. It has removed the compulsory work testing of people on the domestic purposes benefit and put more resources into case work in order to help domestic purposes beneficiaries look ahead at their future in terms of their education training and employment needs. That was good legislation which the Green Party supported and it is hard to comprehend in that context why on earth the Government also has to take this retrogressive step. It is high time that the Government stopped taking a kind of moral stand because that is all it is. Six dollars is just a token deduction. It is a totally unnecessary and uncalled for and it is a great pity that this Government has to stoop as low as this bill. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I take a call in the final part of this debate on the title and commencement clauses of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT party. I would like to make a few points about the bill. It is a scandal that it took 5 long years for this bill to come in front of the House. When this issue was first raised with the Minister not long after he became the Minister there were growing numbers of women who were refusing to name the fathers of their children. There are growing numbers of kids who do not know who their dads are. I think it is just a dreadful shame that 35000 children in New Zealand do not have a father named on their birth certificate. 
As we have said in this debate a lot of the causes of the problem come back to a very unfair child support law which means that people decide to collude with one another in order to avoid paying up. That is a huge problem for everybody not least for the taxpayers of New Zealand who as we have just heard are now paying $23 million a day in welfare payments. That is $1 million an hour. Rather than try to address one of the big problems—the Child Support Act which is very unfair—the Minister has come up with this bill which will hide the numbers. It will provide exemptions for women who refuse to name fathers because those women claim rightly or wrongly that they know the fathers are violent or else that they are deadbeat dads who will not be prepared to pay anyway. Therefore instead of addressing the fundamental causes of the problem so that we end up with a better society we have this Clayton’s bill that will come into force in May and July I see as I read the commencement dates. 
I also want to make a comment to the Minister who has claimed in his contributions to this debate that the welfare department now tells parents of their obligations and because of that more of them are naming fathers so that the problem is starting to reduce as they accept their responsibilities. I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us whether when welfare staff tell single parents about their responsibilities they also tell them about the Government research that finds that long-term welfare dependency and sole parenthood damage kids. Does the Minister ask his department to discourage single parents from going on welfare till their youngest child is 18 and to encourage them to get out there get a life get a job and have a better future for themselves and their children—not on welfare? Does the Minister accept responsibility for realising that children do better if their parents are in the workforce—if children have a working role model in their family? Or does he sit back and say it does not matter whether we have more single parents going on a benefit—that it is OK and the Government does not mind about it because they will be Labour Party supporters? 
I say to the Minister that he has a moral obligation to make sure that anybody who goes on welfare in the long term and who is able-bodied realises that all the research the Social Policy Agency did which went back over years and years is absolutely conclusive that welfare in the long term is damaging to children. Any Minister of the Crown has a responsibility to make sure that families on welfare know that. I can tell the Minister that taxpayers out there know that. They know it is wrong for people who could work and who should be working to be stuck on welfare. What I would like to be seeing today is our debating a bill to bring in welfare reform that would support people to move off welfare and go into work a bill that would provide support for families children and so on. But that bill must be one whereby we actually help children to have working parents—not parents on welfare because no matter how well or how hard beneficiaries try it is not the same as being in work. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I do not really agree with Dr Newman on much in relation to welfare policy but there is no doubt that unlike the spokesperson for the National Party she does spend a great deal of time trying to work out her ideas which is something I always admire. When she gets up she usually has something to say. She asked a question that does not have much to do with Part 3 of this bill but I will reply to it anyway. She is concerned about the amount of money being spent on the domestic purposes benefit. 
The member will remember that when we came into power the National Government had had a system that meant in essence that Work and Income staff spoke to a person on the domestic purposes benefit when his or her child was 6 and again when the youngest child was 14. As far as I can tell National took that as great intervention. Looked at more closely there was a little flurry of activity perhaps—not always but perhaps—when children were around the ages of 6 and 14 but after that nothing ever happened. Nothing at all was done for people on the domestic purposes benefit. That was the system that the National Government used to run and that the ACT party thought was quite useful. 
We did not think that it was good enough. We had the view that people who are on the domestic purposes benefit move through it in about 3½ years on average. In the past they often came back to it because the wages they could get in the 1990s were too low to be able to support their children. The average person on the domestic purposes benefit is about 32 years of age and is a woman moving from being in a relationship to looking for some form of independence. In our view a much better thing to do was to start even before people came on to the benefit by asking them to begin writing for themselves a plan that would tell us how they would return to work or to prepare for the day that they could return to work. 
Ms Bradford who is in the House today had a big hand in helping us with the process of planning. So now I can inform Mrs Newman who seems not to have noticed of the reason that the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit is coming down in a sustained way. It should come down and that is a view that Ms Bradford and I share. It is something that is not right in this country—when we compare ourselves with other like jurisdictions we have too many people who are on a sole parent benefit. We have too many people who are in that category and we want to see the figure come down. 
We know that it is because they cannot get quality childcare and the kinds of wages that would allow them to support their children that they are often in situations where they simply do not get the training that allows them to lift their capacity to move into a job that will pay them a decent wage. So we have begun to pay attention to a whole range of policies that provide practical support to allow people on the domestic purposes benefit to plan for a rapid return to work and to stay there which is of course what we want. We do not want them to come back because they simply cannot afford to live on the wages that they are getting. 
So I can inform the House that Mrs Newman’s very good question and it is a question that she has persisted with over time was addressed last year. Ninety-three percent of people on the domestic purposes benefit now have a personal plan that leads towards them returning to employment. This is a vastly superior system to one that simply meant a little flurry of activity when the youngest child was 6 and then 14. We sincerely hope that this plan will see the rapid movement of people through the benefit and on to independence by giving them the support that they need. 
I return to Mrs Collins’ deep concern about section 70A of the principal Act and the speech she gave before. She has given speeches on that section all the way through the debate. I encourage her if she does take another call to tell us her policy. We have spent a wee while on this debate and have heard her talk about what the Government is doing. She says she does not agree with it even though the numbers are dropping—down to 16130 from a peak of over 20000. I think that is absolutely right. Men should be fronting up to their obligations. We are seeing a steady decline now. 
But it would be good if Mrs Collins could identify an idea. It does not have to be a big idea or something that is too rigorous—an idea would do. I notice that Mrs Wong once again is having to step into the breach as she often does to support her colleagues. She is a thoughtful intelligent and able member of Parliament. I look forward to her rising in a moment to give us an idea. Mr Gudgeon has done so from New Zealand First’s point of view and Mrs Newman from ACT has done so. Let us hear one from the National Party. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Before I start my speech I firstly seek leave of the House to table the National Party social welfare reform speech that was made by Dr Don Brash so that the Minister can get a full briefing. It can become his compulsory reading. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
PANSY WONG 
: I am glad that the Minister will now have some good substantial reading to help him reflect on why Dr Newman cannot bring herself to support this legislation. The Minister is in such a good mood for taking calls that I invite him to do it again because he has not answered two questions posed by Dr Muriel Newman which I shall try to put to him again. 
One question is why it took so long for the Minister to bring this token—according to our Green Party colleague—legislation to the House. I volunteer to answer that. A very big part of his decision was due to our leader Dr Don Brash making his speech on social welfare reform in January this year. Suddenly Labour realised that it was once again in trouble. It had not made the necessary changes to ensure that children were entitled to contributions from both parents to their well-being. 
The second question that Dr Muriel Newman posed to the Minister was whether Ministry of Social Development staff at the time that they informed mothers of their obligation to name the father also impressed upon those applicants that it is important for the long-term well-being of their children that they receive a contribution from the other party—the liable parent. My good colleague Judith Collins consistently sought that answer from the Minister. I am not too sure why the Minister did not quite get around to answering her question. Her question was simply put: did this bill particularly clause 7 do anything to make sure that both parents are held responsible for bringing up their children? 
I think Sue Bradford of the Green Party put her finger on the right spot when she said that the $6 penalty is a very token gesture. Why should Labour which is supposedly compassionate and does not penalise the individual bring it in? It is nothing but election year grandstanding. Labour is trying to send a token message. The Minister for the past 5½ years has done nothing to solve this problem. Every time he has answered questions he has reinforced the fact that this bill does nothing to achieve what he wants to achieve when it comes to tackling the issue of solo parents. He has tried to say that all those other plans—making people sit down to write mission statements objectives and performance targets—contribute to a reduction in the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit. If that is the case why is the House dragged into debating this bill and why is the select committee called upon to examine this issue—when the substance of that problem in the Minister’s words is being tackled by the department not by the passage of this legislation? 
National still chooses to support the bill for one principal reason: because we believe that both parents should be held responsible for bringing up their children. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 My comments will be brief at this stage. Harking back to the comments I have heard today in this Chamber I would just like to re-emphasise to those listening and to members present today that family wealth increases only through a well-rounded education. Regarding wealth or poverty those situations come about only because of choices and decisions that people have made. 
I hark back to the 1999 election when I was invited to speak at the opening of an extension to an arm of Mangaroa Prison in Hawke’s Bay. The Chairperson probably remembers that. As a guest there I emphasised to the inmates that the key to any future development of them was for them to get a sound education. After that comments were made by Pacific Island representatives and Maori elder representatives because the majority of the people we were speaking to were Maori or Pacific Island—but mostly Maori. At the conclusion of that speech the inmates in that prison—not because I was a visitor; protocol dictates that they decide whether to support a speech that one has made—came and supported what I had said. They supported the notion and the suggestion that after their time was up in prison they needed to get a good sound education in order for them to get out of the situations they were in before they went inside. 
That is likewise for solo parents. As a former lecturer at a polytech I always emphasised to students in the lectures I gave—and I continue to do so today—that education was the key. Today I meet a number of those former students who are in good sound positions in work and who are contributing to society; previously they were on some form of benefit or in a solo mother situation. I say to members of Parliament that to solve the problems we have in our society today we have to get people out of that situation. We need to encourage people to get a good sound education and to develop the potential each one has whatever it may be. 
I notice—and I do not want to categorise people into ethnic groups—that the Maori Party is opposing this bill. When we look at the statistics we see that a large number of Maori are in that situation. Our people need to be assisted to get on their feet. Once they are on their feet we will not tell them to get a job but will say that this is the programme they need to follow and it is along the lines of their getting an education so that they can become skilled and qualified and can be in a situation in which they can achieve wealth. That is where New Zealand First is coming from. But looking at what is happening today. We can talk about the figures—19000 solo mothers with 35000 children. What are we going to do about it? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Vote for the bill. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: I have already made members aware that New Zealand First supports the bill with provisos. The key for people in that situation is not for us to be judgmental about the situation they are in but for us to look at the skills and the education they need so that they can become good citizens contributing to society. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to.  
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 16 
ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 16 
ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.