Gudgeon Bill: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Gudgeon Bill: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19536] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 There has been a steady increase in the number of sole parent beneficiaries who do not legally identify the other parent of their child or who refuse to do so when applying for child support. The number has gone from 7965 or 5.6 percent of all sole parents in 1993 to 19467 or 16 percent in 2004. A growing number of liable parents are failing to meet their financial responsibilities to their children. This in turn creates financial inequity between the parents in respect of the costs of supporting their children. It reduces the child support revenue the State receives to help offset the costs of paying benefits to sole parents. It makes it financially harder for the custodial parent to move off the benefit as that parent will then not receive child support which may cause long-term financial disadvantages for the children. The bill’s purpose is to put into effect as part of a broader package of initiatives measures to encourage more sole parent beneficiaries to establish paternity and apply for child support. 
New Zealand First’s minority report states: “New Zealand First strongly believes that there is an onus on mothers to name the fathers of any children for whom taxpayers are asked to contribute through the benefit system. The only exceptions should be those cases where it is absolutely impossible to identify the father but even then every scientific avenue should be explored including DNA sampling and in those instances where the security of the mother/child is endangered by such identification. It is unfair for taxpayers to contribute the sole cost of individuals who conspire or contrive to defeat the obligations of their own responsibility. With this reservation New Zealand First will support the bill.” 
The ministry has undertaken two studies of sole parent beneficiaries receiving reduced benefits to determine why they do not name the liable parents. The results suggest that the reasons for not establishing paternity in applying for child support are multiple and complex. The most common reasons given were that the other parent could not be found or denied paternity and that the beneficiary did not want the other parent to have guardianship rights over the child. The question I leave the House with is how the figure of 19000 people receiving the domestic purposes benefit can be reduced. There are now 19000 mothers receiving the domestic purposes benefit who refuse to name the fathers of their 35000 children. If that is the case can the Government tell me what kind of future those 35000 fatherless children will have? Will future costs escalate? Will the same pattern be repeated when those children become young adults or is there a plan in place to relieve the taxpayer of that burden? 
New Zealand First is not averse to helping people who are on the domestic purposes benefit but those responsible must be held accountable for their actions. Again with the reservation stated in our minority report New Zealand First will support the bill. Let us look at the pattern and the social structure of what is happening today in our country. As has been stated in the House today and at previous times the pattern is that those who are struggling and getting into trouble come from families who either have no fathers or have disputes in the home. The counsel is not there the priority is not there the education is not there and the ability to converse with one’s children is not there. So what is the result of that? 
When I hear that children are born to mothers who do not even know who the father is I think we are in cuckoo-land. In most cases if not all cases the woman would know who the father is. If she does not know we have scientific methods of proving who the father is. Fathers who abscond from their responsibilities of taking care of their children financially should be held accountable by the courts of this land. Parents who are responsible and are responsible taxpayers should not be left with the burden of supporting people who are in that situation. However from the goodness of our hearts we look at those people in that situation as other human beings who have made mistakes or who have fallen into this situation through no choice of theirs. 
New Zealand First supports this bill with the proviso that those steps should be put in place and that serious consideration should be given to holding the fathers accountable. We support this bill with those reservations and if there is a possibility of looking further at how the problem can be solved we will also look at supporting such measures when they come to the House. So without further ado this is where New Zealand First stands. The country needs to know that people who are in that situation must be more accountable and more responsible for the activities they are involved in.