Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chairman. I want to support my colleagues Louise Upston and Alfred Ngaro in raising real concerns about the repeal of the responsibilities of parents. I think when I've listened to the Minister and the Minister of Children there's a real naivety about the real world in New Zealand because before this law existed there was a real racket that went on in New Zealand and it went like this: if the mother doesn't name the father they don't have to pay their child support. So what the father does is he says to the mother Don't name me and I'll give you a hundred bucks a week cash under the table." That certainly suits the financial interests of the mum it certainly suits the financial interests of the father but it is grossly unfair to the honest law-abiding mums and dads who meet their responsibilities in New Zealand. My great fear in the naivety of this bill is that that is what is going to occur again and I want the Minister to say why that would not occur. What would be the incentive out in the real New Zealand world for people to be able to avoid their child support responsibilities? Or am I to take from the look on the Minister's face that actually she doesn't care? She doesn't care about that fairness. The second question I have is actually for the Minister of Children. Members on this side of the House actually believe it's the right of the child to know who their dad is. I think that is a fundamental right if you believe in the wellbeing of children and this is the Wellbeing Budget. So why do we want to remove the incentive for children to know who their mum and dad are? I'll have a bet with the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development: if this bill is passed the number of birth certificates with the Department of Internal Affairs of which there is no father will radically increase.Why do I know that? It's because before this became the law the opposite was true. Actually when this did become the law we saw a substantive increase in the number of children who know who their fathers are. So I say to the members opposite: what's good about a society in which kids don't know who their dad is? There is a deafening silence. Why is it that members opposite do not understand the importance of the role that fathers play in children's lives and why we want a legal framework where people do know who their dad is? There is nothing that is going to be positively achieved for the wellbeing of New Zealand society and children by providing this crude financial incentive for dads to no longer be named on the birth certificate.The further point I would want to make is actually about how reasonable sections 192 to 194 in the current Act—the Social Security Act 2018—are. When I listened to the member and I listened to members opposite you would think that this is a harsh provision with no discretion. As my colleagues have pointed out there's actually very good practical law in what is being repealed. If there are issues of domestic violence if there are issues of incest if there are other reasonable reasons as to why the mother would not want to name the child there is absolute provision in section 193 of the existing law that we are now proposing to repeal. Those provisions are being removed which actually disproves the claims that are being made by the members opposite.So I would just love a member opposite to show me the examples of where mums are being asked to name the father of the child in unreasonable circumstances because I've not seen one and I've dealt with hundreds of constituency cases in this area. The tragedy of this law is that it is going to disconnect children from their fathers and fathers have an absolute pivotal—both financial and other—role to play in children's lives. This is a provision that will actually make the wellbeing of New Zealand families and New Zealand children worse and that's why the Opposition opposes it so strongly."