Kedgley Sue: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19538] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not support this bill and that is a shame because there are two areas in it that we strongly support—namely extending the eligibility for accommodation supplement to residents of retirement villages who have a “licence to occupy” tenure—we think that is an excellent idea—and also the provisions that make sure that people like seasonal workers are able to elect a 52-week rather than a 26-week income assessment period for the calculation of stand-downs. This will make it easier for people in industries such as meatworks fruit and vegetable picking and so on so we strongly support both of those measures. 
But we have a real problem with this bill around the changes to section 70A of the Social Security Act in particular the measures that increase the penalty for not naming the father of a child by a further $6 a week. Twenty-two dollars a week is already deducted for this. Once this bill becomes law a mother on the domestic purposes benefit with one affected child will loose $28 a week from her benefit and a mother of two children will lose $50 a week. The core domestic purposes benefit for a mother with two children is now $256 a week so if we strip $50 from that it leaves $206 to support three people. 
I notice that the National Party representative said a “mere” $6 but when we look at incomes like $206 a week that is a very substantial amount of money. The question is: who are we punishing here? Why are we punishing the children of single mothers when all of the research suggests that children of single mothers are the most disadvantaged in our society? Report after report has come out telling us that single-parent families are at the bottom of all socioeconomic indicators yet here we are deliberately increasing child and family poverty for the most vulnerable section of our society. 
Why is the Labour Party taking this punitive step against single mothers—a segment of society that the Government should strongly support? Why is the Labour Party joining with the National Party in the scapegoating and punishing of solo parents? 
It is interesting that ever since the introduction of the domestic purposes benefit single mothers have been the scapegoats and under constant attack from politicians. In 1990 Gordon Campbell noted in a  
Listener 
 article: “It’s election year. Politicians are already out DPB-bashing playing on the widespread hostility towards solo parents. It seems to be open season against DPB recipients. Why is it that single mothers are the subject of such vitriolic abuse?”. 
He might as well have been talking about today. The “DPB-bashing” has begun in earnest in the same pattern that has occurred for many decades. In 1990 the domestic purposes benefit action group said: “We’re sick of being election scapegoats and being used as a ploy or a diversion to take attention off the real issues.” I am sure that is how hundreds of single mothers feel today. I am sure they are as perplexed as the Green Party is as to why the Labour Party is joining in this scapegoating and attacking of single mothers. 
I would have thought that single mothers on their own trying to bring up a family would have the support and encouragement of this Parliament rather than being singled out for abuse and scapegoating. The domestic purposes benefit is never presented as a form of payment for bringing up children but rather is a sort of handout that is grudgingly given by society to enable single mothers to survive. Single mothers on the domestic purposes benefit are usually lumped together with the unemployed as if they are receiving a benefit for being out of work when what they are receiving a benefit for is for the most productive work that there is albeit unpaid work—bringing up children. They are receiving assistance to bring up the next generation of children. 
We know that the children of single mothers are amongst the most vulnerable in New Zealand. They are the ones in all the statistics. Why then would we seek to penalise and to punish those children? Why punish them for the sins of their fathers by increasing penalties on single mothers who do not or are unable to name the father of their child. 
There are all sorts of reasons why mothers do not wish or are unable to name the father of their child. Sometimes it is because the contact was so fleeting that there is no connection or reason why the mother would know or even want to know or see the father again. Sometimes it is because she simply does not know who the father is. The implication of the debate in this House is that this is all the fault of these terrible women who do not know who the father is—but what about the men? Where is their responsibility? 
We are certainly in favour of doing everything we can to make the fathers accountable and to help them to pay and contribute to the bringing up of their children.But we do not believe that penalising the single mothers who are struggling on the lowest of incomes in our society and their children is the way to do it. 
I am not at all surprised that the National Party is supporting this bill. It seems to have a policy of scapegoating and targeting single mothers. While glorifying motherhood and saying how wonderful it is for middle-class women to be mothers they seem regrettably to feel compelled to attack and scapegoat mothers who for various reasons find themselves on their own as single mothers trying to raise children in our society. 
Parenthood is the most productive work in our society. Quite frankly it is astonishing that it is unpaid work. Surely it is important that we acknowledge and support those women who are on their own who are often unsupported and who have no real encouragement or support in their efforts to bring up the next generation of New Zealanders. Surely we should not be punishing them and most of all their children. Surely we should not be joining in yet another scapegoating of single mothers. It has happened throughout history. It is tragic that it is happening under a Labour Government. In the 21st century we find it incredible and for that reason we will be opposing this bill. 
Debate interrupted.