Wong Pansy: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19584] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Before I start my speech I firstly seek leave of the House to table the National Party social welfare reform speech that was made by Dr Don Brash so that the Minister can get a full briefing. It can become his compulsory reading. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
PANSY WONG 
: I am glad that the Minister will now have some good substantial reading to help him reflect on why Dr Newman cannot bring herself to support this legislation. The Minister is in such a good mood for taking calls that I invite him to do it again because he has not answered two questions posed by Dr Muriel Newman which I shall try to put to him again. 
One question is why it took so long for the Minister to bring this token—according to our Green Party colleague—legislation to the House. I volunteer to answer that. A very big part of his decision was due to our leader Dr Don Brash making his speech on social welfare reform in January this year. Suddenly Labour realised that it was once again in trouble. It had not made the necessary changes to ensure that children were entitled to contributions from both parents to their well-being. 
The second question that Dr Muriel Newman posed to the Minister was whether Ministry of Social Development staff at the time that they informed mothers of their obligation to name the father also impressed upon those applicants that it is important for the long-term well-being of their children that they receive a contribution from the other party—the liable parent. My good colleague Judith Collins consistently sought that answer from the Minister. I am not too sure why the Minister did not quite get around to answering her question. Her question was simply put: did this bill particularly clause 7 do anything to make sure that both parents are held responsible for bringing up their children? 
I think Sue Bradford of the Green Party put her finger on the right spot when she said that the $6 penalty is a very token gesture. Why should Labour which is supposedly compassionate and does not penalise the individual bring it in? It is nothing but election year grandstanding. Labour is trying to send a token message. The Minister for the past 5½ years has done nothing to solve this problem. Every time he has answered questions he has reinforced the fact that this bill does nothing to achieve what he wants to achieve when it comes to tackling the issue of solo parents. He has tried to say that all those other plans—making people sit down to write mission statements objectives and performance targets—contribute to a reduction in the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit. If that is the case why is the House dragged into debating this bill and why is the select committee called upon to examine this issue—when the substance of that problem in the Minister’s words is being tackled by the department not by the passage of this legislation? 
National still chooses to support the bill for one principal reason: because we believe that both parents should be held responsible for bringing up their children.