Rich Katherine: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Rich Katherine: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15805] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 The House will be stunned to hear that speech and to hear how the Minister has changed his tune on this issue. Let us not doubt the reason we are here debating this legislation: it is because of the work done by the National Party and by Muriel Newman. Both the National Party and ACT have brought up this issue time and time again over the last 5 years but it is only now that the Government wants to do anything about it. It knows it is in trouble in the area of welfare and wants to look as if it is doing something constructive about it. However this bill is unlikely to deliver what the Minister says it will. 
The National Party intends to vote for the bill to go to the select committee but with some pretty strong reservations. It covers an issue that has troubled the National Party for some time. When we look at the numbers we see that about 19000 women do not name the father of their children. Unfortunately the issue involves mainly women but quite interestingly the ministry was not able to give me any explanation at all why more than 250 men were getting this deduction. It could not tell me why those men were finding it difficult to name the mother of their children. Who knows maybe the bill will clear that up as well. We are talking about 35000 children whose liable parent does not make a contribution to their support. 
Under this Government child support debt will go to $1 billion. The Government knows it is in trouble. That is why it is scrambling about trying to make some changes. What is its answer? It is to impose an additional reduction of $6 per week per beneficiary. Well whoop-de-doo! If I have 10 children then frankly $6 per week from my benefit will not motivate me to do anything. 
Jill Pettis 
: People don’t have 10 children. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I suggest to the member that if she goes out to her electorate she will find that some families do have 10 children. I think she needs a lesson on the birds and the bees. 
The problem of child support debt is very very troubling. It is likely to go to $1 billion under this Government—and I hope that David Cunliffe will take a call to discuss this issue because the collection of child support debt is very important. A growing number of women cannot or will not name the father of their children. I understand there can be some very reasonable reasons why that it is so but I do not for 1 minute buy into it that nearly 20000 women are totally unaware of who the father of their child is. 
One thing the Minister did not explain was why the Ministry of Social Development does not collect child support from some non-custodial parents even though the names of both parents are on its files. About 2500 case files have the names of the fathers on them yet the Government does not collect a cent from them when it comes to child support. This issue is not just about making sure that the House is fair to the taxpayer; it is also about making sure that we are as fair as possible to the children. I hope that most fathers would do more than just make a financial contribution towards their children’s upkeep; I hope they would give emotional support and support in other ways as well. But if fathers are not named or asked to meet their responsibilities then they would have to go some way to prove themselves as parents. We are unsure how these measures will make a skerrick of difference. Six dollars will not make a difference to a family of five or more children because the amount does not go up. I question how the measure will motivate some parents to make a decision to name the other parent of their child. 
The Minister keeps chirping in with all sorts of silly little comments. He needs to explain to the House why under his watch the number of women aged between 15 and 24 in south Auckland who do not name the father of their child has gone up to nearly 33 percent. So rather than there being an extraordinary situation where the father is unknown—I just do not buy that for one moment—it has become the way to do things in some pockets of that community. Things have to change. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: We’ve got it under control. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: After 5 years that is a bit of a lame comment. Today in the House we heard the Minister debate issues like the Community Employment Group and talk about some of the changes he is making in the welfare area but let us not doubt for one moment that he is doing that because he needs to look as though he is talking tough on welfare. His polling information will be telling him that this issue is the next issue of concern for many of his constituents. He knows that for the last 5 years he has just sat on his hands while the problem has spiralled out of control. Thirty-five thousand children have a parent who does not make a contribution to their upkeep. Mr Maharey knows the names of 2500 of those liable parents. They are on the files but he cannot do anything about it. Because the form has not been filled out Work and Income cannot take it to Income Support to get that parent to make a contribution. 
It will be interesting to see what the submissions are like in the select committee. I think that the bill is unlikely to deliver on its stated aims. However because we have an open mind we are supporting it to a select committee and we look forward to hearing the submissions. I suspect that some of the submissions will say that while the bill talks tough basically it is unlikely to change any behaviours out in the community; that rather than making any real changes it is more about making the Government look as though it is doing something. Let us not one moment doubt that this issue is one of the major ones facing the welfare portfolio. When more and more parents will not name the other liable parent an extra burden is put on the taxpayer. It is unfair not only to the taxpayers who continue to carry the can for the upkeep of some of these children it is also unfair to the children. It is difficult enough to bring up children when one has a supportive family but doing it on one’s own and on a welfare benefit is much tougher. 
I think that a lot of families will welcome some of the changes. Hopefully they will bring in more income and more support for their children. But we need to get real about this particular problem and stop pretending that every single parent who refuses to name the other parent does not know the parentage of his or her child. I totally accept that there are some circumstances where that may be correct but on the whole I believe that it is not correct. Many parents refuse to fill out the form so that the Inland Revenue Department can track down the liable parent to get some relief for the taxpayer and more important for the children involved. I do not for one moment think that Mr Maharey is as worried as all that about the children this legislation will affect; I think he is more interested in window dressing—more interested in looking as though he is doing something to try to turn round this problem. 
I can tell members that this legislation will not make a difference for the 33 percent of women aged between 15 and 24 in south Auckland who do not name the fathers of their children. Six dollars over three kids! Why would that motivate anybody to make any changes? We need to be honest about this issue. We need to try to make some changes that will ensure that parents take responsibility for their children and ensure that the kids involved get the support they need. As child support debt spirals out of control to nearly $1 billion under this Government those children will still wait for their soccer boots their music lessons and their school camp fees to be paid—$1 billion and this Government continues to fail in this portfolio.