Barker Rick: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Barker Rick: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19533] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to thank the members of the Social Services Committee for their consideration of the bill for the report on the bill and for the amendments they have proposed. 
The bill makes three main amendments to the Social Security Act. Firstly the bill extends eligibility for an accommodation supplement to residents of retirement villages who have a “licence to occupy” tenure and who meet the other qualifying criteria for an accommodation supplement including the income and cash asset test. I expect 200 to 300 retirement village residents will benefit from this change by qualifying for an accommodation supplement of on average between $37 and $54 per week. That will be very welcome. 
Secondly the bill changes the benefit stand-down rules in order to improve the incentives for people on benefits to undertake seasonal work and other short-term employment. The stand-down is calculated on the applicant’s income in the 26 weeks before becoming entitled to a benefit on his or her marital status and on the number of children in his or her care. At the moment some seasonal workers who work for part of the year can be disadvantaged by the 26-week assessment. The bill will now allow from 1 May 2005 benefit applicants to elect to have a 26 or 52-week income assessment period for the calculation of their stand-down period. That change will advantage approximately 4500 benefit applicants a year by reducing the length of their initial stand-down. That will reduce the disincentives for people to undertake seasonal work or temporary work and may also reduce the need for recoverable assistance. 
Thirdly the bill will put into effect as part of the broader package of initiatives changes to the regime that encourages sole parents to name the other parent of their child in law and to apply for child support. Sole parent families in New Zealand make up around 29 percent of all families with dependent children. For those families the State will step in financially to help them where they cannot financially support themselves. But in doing so the State also expects the other parent to contribute to the cost of the child as well. It is not unreasonable for the State to expect that both parents of a child will contribute to the cost of caring for the child or to expect sole parents to take the actions necessary to bring that about. It is not unreasonable to financially penalise those who do not do that. We actively encourage single-parent beneficiaries to name the other parent in law and to apply for child support and the majority do. But around 17200 beneficiaries are letting the other parent get away without providing for their children because they refuse to name him or her or they refuse to seek child support. 
This Government’s policies on section 70A of the Act are already having the effect of discouraging that. When the Government came into office the number of sole parents and beneficiaries who were not penalised because they had failed to name the other parent or apply for child support had increased by over 40 percent since 1993. The numbers were increasing by around 1000 a year and the trend was not abating. However between June 2004 and March this year the number of beneficiaries who were receiving a penalty because they had not named the other parent in law or had not applied for child support has decreased by 15 percent. It is continuing to decrease. The additional reduction is not intended to cause hardship to families. The reduction is $6 per beneficiary not per child. The aim of the additional reduction is to provide a clear message that it is important to name the other parent in law and to apply for child support. 
I now wish to commend the bill to the House.