Goudie Sandra: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19754] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 National supports this bill because even though it falls short of comprehensively addressing serious issues in regard to social welfare there are at least some positives which is a bit of a surprise. The tremendous amount of work and cooperation undertaken by the Social Services Committee has been acknowledged. It is good that there is some provision for eligibility for the accommodation supplement for residents of retirement villages who have a licence to occupy and that the bill ensures that they are treated consistently in terms of access to financial assistance. One can only assume that the estimated number of retirement village residents expected to quality as identified by the Minister as being 200 to 300 persons is reasonably accurate. 
It is good that benefit stand-down rules are now vastly improved to improve incentives for people on benefits to undertake seasonal and other short-term employment. I am sure that that is one element of the bill that will be wholeheartedly welcomed not just by persons on a benefit wanting to undertake part-time work wanting to continue to have some form of independence without being penalised and wanting to work part-time without costing them more and discouraging real effort to find work. I am sure that employers will welcome an opportunity to employ local people who may be on a benefit and who are discouraged from seeking employment. 
This bill goes some way to address the fact that it actually costs more to work part-time and that therefore it is not worthwhile to seek work. Hopefully that issue will be addressed effectively through the bill and National welcomes that move. As many will no doubt be aware part-time workers are hard to come by and it is to be hoped that there will be a marked improvement in this situation for the many orchards and pack-houses particularly in my Coromandel electorate but also throughout the rest of New Zealand. Staff are becoming increasingly more and more difficult to get particularly on a part-time basis. 
I come now to the next provision in the bill as stated by the Hon Steve Maharey. He said that the bill also puts into effect changes to the regime that encourages sole parents to establish paternity for their children and apply for child support. Quite clearly Mr Maharey listened to and read the excellent work done by the National Party. But why is it that from 1 April 2006 any parent who does not name the other parent be it a mother or father will lose $6 a week from their benefit—the Greens are actually horrified about that—but that the family support package which also kicks in on that day gives that parent $25 extra a week for the first child and $15 extra a week for the second child? We see for that first child a net gain of $19. 
One has to wonder why the Greens are opposing that provision when it puts more in the pocket of the person who is on the benefit. Where is there any incentive to name the other parent when instead of being $6 worse off one is in fact $19 better off for the first child and a full $15 better off for every subsequent child? In actual fact one could say that there was an incentive for increasing that dependency instead of a deterrent for single-parent dependency. 
This Government has once again failed in its responsibility to provide sound policy and to exhibit some sense of fiscal capability. But then we are continually made aware of the lack of fiscal understanding and capability of this Government. The provisions in this bill in relation to the naming of a parent have the real possibility of seeing the number of unnamed parents actually increase. Perhaps Dr Michael Cullen might like to pay a bit more attention to the legislation being promulgated by his party. One has only to look at the exemptions to see the distinct possibility. First if a parent claims that the other parent is violent naming does not have to take place. There is actually an incentive for the parent to be a little violent and therefore not be required to be named. The second exemption is more significant— 
Jill Pettis 
: Explain that again. We missed something. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well I suggest that member reads the bill as well. If a parent claims that there is no hope of the other parent ever paying for his or her children then once again he or she can be exempt from liability. Cry poor and one is off the hook. Third claim the other parent is dead and they are off the hook. It is patently ridiculous. How could there possibly be any exemption for having to name a dead person? After all one should be required to name to clarify that the person is in fact dead. How bizarre can one get? That is a fine example of the lack of the practical understanding in the application of the law. [ 
Interruption 
] I would strongly recommend that those members go back and look at the bill and refer to the  
Hansard 
. 
I wholeheartedly support my most excellent colleague Judith Collins when she says that it is a child’s right to know who his or her parents are and that when we take away that right we take it not from the father but from the child. My most excellent colleague Judith Collins has now also clarified that of the 40000 women who refuse to name the fathers of their children—and we must remember that there are a number of men who have refused to name the mothers of their children—there are now more than 11000 liable parents said to be living in Australia. What is the Government doing to recoup some of that loss of support for those children? It is worth reminding the New Zealand public that under the current Government the number of unnamed parents has increased by some 20-odd thousand with some three women a day refusing to name the fathers of their children. 
I do not see that there is any way in which this bill actually curbs or controls that in any way. There will be valid reason for not naming in some cases but for others who have multiple partners and do not know who the fathers are some mandatory DNA tests would be a proactive and cost-effective measure to identify parents who are liable for child support. Innocent men accused of being fathers when they know they are not should also be accorded access to free DNA testing to ensure that they are not unjustly named.