Newman Muriel: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19574] 
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.