Pettis Jill: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15815] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I shall just respond initially to some of the comments made by other members during this debate. Of course ideally in an ideal and perfect world all mothers would name the fathers of their children so that those people could take shared parental responsibility. But we do not live in a perfect world. To the best of my knowledge there has been only one immaculate conception although I suspect from time to time that a number of people particularly when there are moral crusades issuing forth through the media—I am not blaming the media; the media are just a conduit—I suggest that some people would like to imply that the same situation applied to them but that is not the case. 
I would also like members to consider that sometimes mothers do not name the fathers of their children because of the very real threat of violence. I know—and other speakers this afternoon have acknowledged it too—that there is room for exemption. But I want to also point out to members—and I am sure they know this themselves through their own constituency work—that a fair degree of bribery coercion threat and other methods of emotional blackmail are imposed upon the mother by the father of the child by words such as: “If you go me for child support I’ll go you for custody.” Now I am sure that the phrases used might be a little bit more colourful but I know that members know exactly what I am saying. 
This is not attacking fathers; 99.9 percent of fathers in this country do an exemplary job. But I just caution members that there are a lot of things that we do not know about because—luckily for us—the majority of members in this House enjoy very good relationships. 
 We in this House do in the main live in a nuclear family or if not in a nuclear family in a safe family environment. One does not have to be a nuclear family to be a safe family. But one would think that this was the only issue in the bill when there are a number of extremely positive aspects to it. One that I am particularly pleased about because it will have tangible benefits for older New Zealanders living in retirement villages is that up to 300 retirement village residents will be better off by between $37 and $54 per week. That is money in the hand—money that can be spent on essential items. That is very real and extremely helpful relief for people in that category. 
Also there are advantages for those in seasonal work programmes—those 4500 benefit applicants per year who are affected by having a longer stand-down than is necessary. That is a large number of people who will benefit from the flexibility that applies to seasonal workers as the stand-down period will be much shorter for them. That will not only benefit those seasonal workers but provide considerable support and assistance for growers particularly in provincial New Zealand. 
So there are many positive aspects to this bill. I am sure it will be debated and discussed extremely comprehensively in the select committee. But rather than concentrating just on moral issues all the time—that does get tiresome—let us also consider the very positive aspects of the bill that provide a direct response in a meaningful way to retirement village residents and seasonal workers. This is a good bill.