Collins Judith: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Collins Judith: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19568] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 In looking at the title of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill I thought what a smarmy title it is for a bill that will in fact introduce a $6 per week reduction in benefits for mothers or fathers who refuse to name the other parent of their child. [ 
Interruption 
] People are asking how there can possibly be fathers who cannot name the mother of their children. One of the awful things in this country at the moment is that over 250 fathers who receive the domestic purposes benefit say that they cannot name the mother of their child. 
Jill Pettis 
: Mother? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes the mother of the child—and the chief Government whip should know that. That is because those fathers do not have to fill in the liable-parent contribution form so that the taxpayers of this country might receive a bit of help from the parent who should be liable. Apart from those 250—which might not seem many except when we think that 250 men supposedly do not know who the mother of their children is—more than 19000 mothers do not name the father of their children. 
I have spoken in the Chamber before about this particular provision in this bill. I have said—and I will say it again—that this bill does nothing other than to send a teeny-weeny message that dads may be important to their children and that maybe the taxpayers of this country have a right to expect the parents of a child to have the primary duty towards that child. Our parliamentary colleague John Tamihere showed in an interview reported by the excellent  
Investigate 
 magazine dated April 2005 in which he talked about fathers having to take their kids to sport on Saturdays that he understands that even though some families do split up and mum and dad do not always live together fathers are still important to their children—in fact desperately important. 
Of course the Minister does not understand this issue. The Minister thinks that if we take away $6 a week and on the same day give back more than $6 a week—about $19 a week back—then that will do. That is in fact just a token slap in the face for the taxpayers of New Zealand so that this Government can say that it is doing something. Well it is not doing enough. 
Mr Tamihere says—and I have to agree with him—that he would promote Mr Maharey immediately to “make him wear” all the things—I will not use the term he uses—that have come out because he deserves it—“him and his mob”. That is exactly right. Mr Tamihere is talking straight and he is right. This bill does nothing for the kids of this country. It does nothing for the parents who cannot get access to their children. It does nothing for mothers who are subjected to stand-over tactics from former partners who say that if they are named they will beat the mother up or do something else to her or that they will no longer give her the cash under the table that she is currently getting—because we know that that is happening in this country. 
This Government smarms all over the place with its little rules and regulations and the spin that it keeps putting on people. As Mr Tamihere says it is all about status and spin; there is no substance. With this bill the Government just attempts a little flick saying to taxpayers that it will get them $6 a week back. We know that that is rubbish. The only reason why we on this side of the Chamber are supporting this bill is that it is the very first recognition this Government and this Minister have ever made that maybe dads are important to kids and that maybe kids have rights. Children have the right to know who they are where they come from and where their parents are and the right to be supported primarily by those parents unless there is some real reason why the parents cannot help them. 
It is a real shame that the Government has lost the opportunity to say to those dads who do not bother looking after their kids who do not take their kids to sport and who are not there for their children because they choose not to be that that is not OK. It has also lost an opportunity to say to those mothers who basically in many ways act like children themselves because they do not take responsibility that that is not good enough for our kids.