Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4890] 
3.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Social Services and Employment 
: Is he planning to raise the $22 a child penalty that can be deducted from a single mother’s domestic purposes benefit if the father is unknown; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 The Government believes that in other than exceptional circumstances fathers should be responsible financially for their children. We are therefore considering a range of options to ensure that more liable parents are financially responsible for their children. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Minister given any consideration to granting an exemption so that women who do not name the father because they genuinely fear violence and/or abuse do not have their benefits cut; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: For the information of the House beneficiaries who are taking active steps to identify the parent are exempt. If the child was conceived as a result of incest or sexual violation the beneficiary is exempt. If there is insufficient evidence to identify the other parent the beneficiary is exempt. Of course parents who are in a situation where violence is involved can use the domestic violence legislation to ensure that that partner is dealt with. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What measures is the Government taking to encourage more parents to be financially responsible for their children? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In 2001 the Labour-Alliance Government increased and indexed the minimum liable-parent contribution. We are now also involved in case management of sole parent clients and that has proved to be very useful in making people aware of their responsibilities in relation to child support applications and of how to ensure that fathers are made aware of their responsibilities. We are now exploring a range of other options which will hopefully come to fruition later on this year. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister explain why the department when in some cases it has a fully completed birth certificate on file that names the father does not seek to collect child support—a foolishness that could be costing the taxpayer up to $11 million per year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I outlined before the reasons that a person may well be exempt. In fact what we are exploring at the present time is the State itself seeking family support to ensure that in every possible case application is made. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is it not true that raising the $22 penalty will lead to an increase in supplementary benefits being claimed so that in reality his proposal is a meaningless sop to public opinion? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I should advise the House that this rate has not been lifted since 1992 while at least all other benefit payments have been lifted during that period of time. I think that at least one of the things we should be doing is ensuring the penalty keeps up with inflation. But one of the points that the member raises is quite right: whatever we do here we must make sure that we understand that these payments are for children. We want to ensure they are fed housed and clothed properly and not penalised by any changes that we undertake. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister assure the House that he does intend to match his tough talk with action; if so exactly what is his proposed time frame for the necessary law changes in the light of the fact that this issue has been on the never-never since he has been the Minister? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I always leave the tough talk to Dr Newman. What we are introducing here are sensible changes around liable parents who should be supporting their children. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that any move to obtain more information about parentage should be in the long-term best interests of the child; if so does he agree that acquiring biological information about the father could save a child’s life given what we know about genetic predisposition to disease? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I do agree. I would also like to add that any child has the right to know who his or her father is and to get emotional and financial support from that person. 
Sue Bradford 
: How is the Minister dealing with the contradiction between his support for ending child poverty while at the same time he is launching initiatives to cut income levels even further for some children because of a perceived failing on the part of their mother? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Easily. We are not trying to do something that will introduce hardship into these households. As I mentioned before since 1992 the level of this penalty has not been lifted while the payment to these beneficiaries has been lifted. What we are doing here is part of a suite of changes and we will ensure it does not result in undue hardship for a family.