Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I have to say I'm struck by a sense of déjà vu as we debate Minister Sepuloni's bill under urgency because of course we've done this before. I remember the social security bill that the Minister chose to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to very late in the piece—only 24 hours before the second reading.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We aren't talking about that bill.NICOLA WILLIS: We are.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are not.NICOLA WILLIS: And what happened in that case Madam Chair and the reason it's relevant to this is that there were errors and what had to happen was that another bill had to be brought through this House to repair—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Not this bill. Come back to this bill.NICOLA WILLIS: So my question for the Minister in relation to this bill is: why is it necessary for this bill to be passed under urgency? I ask that question because to my read—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I think that question has been asked before and answered.NICOLA WILLIS: To my read none of the measures within this bill need to start until 2020. So it does seem quite extraordinary to me and I think it is worth asking whether the Minister can guarantee that there won't be drafting errors in this legislation given the rushed process that it is under.I also want to talk about the substance of this bill because of course what it does is it repeals sections 192 to 194 the Social Security Act and makes changes to the Child Support Act. I wonder if the Minister would for this House respond to the comments made by a former Labour Party Minister for Social Development one Steve Maharey who said It is right and I've said time and time again in this Parliament that fathers must front up to their obligations and we will make sure they do." He said "It is not unreasonable to expect that single parents bringing up children on their own identify who in the law is the other parent or to expect that they seek financial support for the child from the other parent. It is not unreasonable to penalise financially those who don't." I want to know what it is that's changed so much in the Labour Party that Minister Maharey was able to stand up and make those values statements about the way we see fathers the obligations they have to their children the obligations they have to financially support them and what has changed that the Labour Party of today thinks that actually those obligations more rightly fall on the State rather than on fathers? That is my question to the Minister.Of course it is right—and National has argued throughout these committee stages—that taxpayers do assume some responsibility. Of course the State should step in to financially support families when they are unable to support themselves but in doing so the Government should expect the other parent to contribute to the cost of raising their child. In fact what is unreasonable is a parent not providing anything towards the cost of his or her child. That is what is unreasonable and so my third question to the Minister is: what is her estimate of how many fewer fathers will pay child support for their children as a consequence of this bill?Hon Ruth Dyson: We've done this.Hon Louise Upston: We didn't get an answer.NICOLA WILLIS: And we have not had that question answered because it is very important and has the Minister analysed in any way how this will affect incentives for fathers to pay child support? What we have seen in the past is that when there aren't penalties in this area we can expect that fewer people will feel the obligation to pay child support for their children and we on this side of the House believe that is wrong.I also in examining this bill have had these examples talked about in the House which I think it's worth pointing out the law as it currently stands unamended already provides for. We've had the examples of people in situations of domestic violence in situations where for very good reason they don't want to name the father of their child and what we have always had is exceptions and clauses in the law that allow for those people to not name the father due to their exceptional circumstances. So again I ask the Minister in the chair Carmel Sepuloni: what is the increase that we can expect and given that people were already able to have these exceptional circumstances clauses who are the additional people that will be excluded under this bill?Finally I just want to raise the issue of vulnerability because of course we can anticipate that some women are in relationships where they will be vulnerable and where they may choose not to name the father because they have an under-the-table arrangement where he says "I'll pay you a hundred bucks each week" and then one week he doesn't and the next week he doesn't. What response would they have with these changes having been made? There are good reasons to name fathers in the law and to require them to pay child support. The National Party opposes this bill because we think it gets those responsibilities all wrong."