Shirley Ken: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19539] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is opposing this bill as is the Green Party. However we oppose it for the exact opposite reasons which is an interesting situation in itself. The ACT party believes that every child has a right to know the identity of his or her father but as the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill will not require women on the domestic purposes benefit to name the fathers of their children except in exceptional circumstances ACT will oppose it. The bill was supposed to provide a solution to the problem of the increasing numbers of women on the domestic purposes benefit who refuse to name the fathers of their children. The harsh reality is that the numbers have escalated over the last few years to the point where one woman in six—one parent in six—on the domestic purposes benefit is now refusing to name the father of her child. I understand that some 19000 parents—more particularly 35000 children—are involved. 
The harsh reality is that people do respond to incentives. Some make the point that the penalty is only $6 a week. Think of the incentive provided by that. We have already heard from the National Party speaker about the many cases she is familiar with. She spoke about live-in boarders who are actually the fathers of the children. The kids call them “Dad” but officially they are boarders and do not make any financial contribution. The women of course receive taxpayers’ money. That is the point. It is not Government money that those people are getting; it is taxpayers’ money. Struggling battlers hard-working New Zealanders are paying too much tax for people who in too many cases are abusing the situation. That is why there needs to be an incentive for fathers to make liable-parent contributions. 
I agree with the Green Party spokesperson that far too many fathers are escaping their responsibilities. Unquestionably that is the case and they should be brought to account. A lot more needs to be done to bring those irresponsible fathers to account. But this bill does not do that. In fact it does the reverse. Six dollars a week is no incentive because although the bill will increase by that amount the penalty for not naming the father that increase will be totally offset by the additional assistance that domestic purposes beneficiaries will receive as a result of the increased assistance through the Working for Families package. That means that by the time the bill comes into force a mother who refuses to name the father of a child will actually receive a benefit increase rather than a decrease. So there is no incentive whatsoever and there does need to be an incentive. People respond to incentives. 
All legislation should concentrate on getting the principle right and the incentive right. The ACT party says that this bill gets not only the principle wrong but also the incentive wrong. Whenever legislation gets both of those things wrong there is a downward spiral. We can expect the escalation in numbers of mothers not naming the fathers of their children only to increase because that is what the incentive provides for and that is what this Government policy provides for. So ACT will be strongly opposing the bill. It does nothing to bring the fathers to account or to make parents more responsible for their offspring. 
I also make the point that with the new DNA technology it is now much simpler to determine who has parental obligations. Nothing in this bill addresses that issue so the bill actually fails to achieve the prime objective for which it was introduced. That is deeply regrettable and we have no hesitation in opposing it.