Maharey Steve: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Maharey Steve: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19723] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill makes three main amendments to the Social Security Act of 1964 to put into effect Budget 2004 decisions. Three areas are covered: changes to the accommodation supplement changes to the calculation of benefit stand-downs and changes to section 70A of the Act to encourage more sole parents to establish the paternity of their children and apply for child support. In relation to the accommodation supplement the bill will be beneficial to residents of retirement villages who have a “licence to occupy” tenure and who meet the other accommodation supplement eligibility criteria. This proposal was widely supported by submitters and the change comes into force on 1 July 2005. 
In relation to changes to the calculation of benefit stand-downs the bill is likely to help approximately 4500 benefit applicants a year who work for part of the year such as seasonal workers by enabling them to elect a 52-week or 26-week income assessment period for the calculation of their stand-down period. That change will come into force on 1 May 2005. I want just in passing to thank Mr Rick Barker and Mr Mark Peck both of whom have for a long time advocated on behalf of seasonal workers in the meat industry in particular. Those workers have found it very difficult to cope with the fact that they often earn what is seen as a relatively high income but then they have a relatively long period of lay-off before they start the season again. That is particularly the case in Southland and in the Hawke’s Bay. I know that those workers will be very appreciative of the hard work of Mr Peck and Mr Barker in relation to the changes for workers in their industry albeit that those changes will affect people across a wide range of seasonal occupations. 
The changes to section 70A of the Act will mean that where the Government believes the State should assist sole parent beneficiaries a parent should also contribute financially. I will extend that of course to say that I think parents should contribute emotionally and financially to their children throughout their lives. The majority of sole parent beneficiaries 85 percent of them as at 26 November 2004 have established who the other parent is in law and have applied for child support. The bill further encourages sole parent beneficiaries to name the other parent of the child in law or apply for child support. The bill provides for a further reduction of $6 per beneficiary for those who are required to name but who have not named the other parent in law or who have not applied for child support when required to do so. The reduction will occur only where the sole parent beneficiary has been given a reasonable opportunity to reconsider his or her decision. 
The bill provides for two additional exemptions from the reduction of the benefit payable to sole parents where they fail to meet their obligations such as naming the other parent or applying for child support. The two additional exemptions apply where first of all the beneficiaries or their children would be at risk of violence should they take steps to name the other parent of a child or apply for child support and secondly where there are compelling circumstances for the beneficiaries’ failure or refusal to carry out their obligations and child support is unlikely to be collected from the other parent in the foreseeable future. Examples of that would include refugees and asylum seekers in circumstances where the other parent of the child is overseas missing or deceased and cases where the other parent of the child is deceased in this country. Carers of children who are not their own in circumstances where the natural mother has not established paternity would also be included under that exemption. I say to the House that I think those exemptions are very necessary. We do have to have criteria that will cover people who are in circumstances where the fathers of the children simply should not be in touch with their children or with the families because they are not fit to be parents in the first place or people who are in a circumstance whereby they are simply not able to be part of this regime because the other parent is deceased. 
From June last year to March this year there was a 15 percent reduction in the number of section 70A beneficiaries. This bill builds on that success and reinforces it and those changes come into force on 1 July 2005. I say once again to the House that the changes are part of a package of changes that for the first time has seen the turning back of the numbers of people who are not declaring the name of the father of their child. Those changes are effective because they give a financial incentive for someone to cooperate but also because we are getting out and working with people so that they understand what is going on here and have begun to tell us the name of the father of their child. I stress that because I know there are people in the House who think the only thing to be done here is to have a financial incentive as they would like to describe it placed on these beneficiaries. That clearly has not worked in the past. The numbers climbed right throughout the period when the financial penalties were in place. It has only been by the introduction of a comprehensive approach including financial penalties that we have seen the numbers drop from their peak of a little over 20000 to a little over 16000 now. I intend to ensure that they continue to drop. 
Measures to assist those beneficiaries who have a section 70A reduction have therefore been quite important to us. We have trained case managers and required them to get out and talk with beneficiaries. Our early intervention programme has been very successful. Case managers provide information to pregnant single women before they even get on to the sickness benefit as to how to establish paternity. Sole parent beneficiaries who have a section 70A reduction imposed on them receive a letter that confirms the reduction so that they know what is going on. They get a fact-sheet about how to apply for legal aid. All those kinds of changes along with the financial penalty are what is making the difference. 
Other assistance to sole parent beneficiaries is important as well. In addition to the specific assistance offered to sole parent beneficiaries who have a section 70A reduction imposed on them case managers provide enhanced case management to all people on the domestic purposes benefit. Case managers work with clients to develop personal development and employment plans in order to help them to prepare for their eventual return to work and I want to stress that. People who come on to the domestic purposes benefit are normally there for about 3½ years. We do not want people who come on to the domestic purposes benefit to wait until their child is 6 or 14. We want them to work even before they come on to the benefit on the assumption that they will return to work when that is appropriate. They have childcare responsibilities obviously. If they are dealing with children and there is a large number in the household it may be appropriate for the person to draw the domestic purposes benefit and look after those children. But even if that is what people are doing they need to be preparing for their eventual return to work when it is appropriate and that is what we are doing. I stress that because I have noticed throughout the debate on this bill an enormous amount of ignorance about the significant steps that have been put in place to assist those people to return to work and I have not heard one single good idea proposed that is not already in place. I think it is worth reminding people that those things are there now. 
Other amendments are contained in the bill. It also makes a number of other changes to the Act to reflect current policy and practice and to update terminology. Those changes come into force the day after the date on which the bill receives royal assent. I thank everybody in the House who has been involved with the bill. I know there is contention about the changes to section 70A of the Act and I am sure those changes will be the substance of the debate that will take place now. But my understanding is that everybody supports those changes because they can see that although the bill may not go as far as they want it is a worthwhile step. I understand that people do support the benefit stand-down changes and the accommodation supplement changes and I thank them for their support on those matters.