Newman Muriel: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19570] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I want to say at the outset that the ACT party will be opposing the bill because it will not fix the problem of welfare abuse. This bill is just another piece of law being passed by the Minister for Social Development and Employment Steve Maharey to try to pull the wool over people’s eyes and make them think the Labour Party is addressing the problem. But really the bill will do nothing. 
This Government and Minister are soft on welfare. Rather than tackle the problem head-on the Minister has put forward a bill that simply hides the reality of what is happening in this area. I understand why he is embarrassed by the numbers of women who will not name the father of their children. At the time the Minister took office some 2000 women had not named the father of their children. As we heard that number has grown to 19000 and is heading upwards as more and more parents realise this is a great way to abuse the welfare system. Even the Minister is on the public record as saying that most people who do not name the father of their children are not doing so because they do not know who he is; they are colluding with each other to avoid the child support system. No one believes that 19000 women cannot name the father of their children; maybe 1000 cannot—who knows? But it is certainly nowhere near 19000. This bill endorses the abuse and fraud that is going on. 
If a father can persuade the mother of his child not to name him on the birth certificate he can avoid paying child support for 18 years. That is an enormous amount of money. That practice has been growing and is more widespread. But rather than address the growing fraud and abuse of the welfare system the Minister has sought to hide the figures. If a parent wants to avoid paying child support the bill provides two new ways to do it. Firstly a woman might say she cannot put the father’s name on the birth certificate because he is violent and she is afraid. So there will be a growth in domestic violence numbers. We will not know until further down the track whether the claims of violence are real or imagined. Secondly a father could say that it is no good putting his name on the certificate because he is not going to pay. He can claim to be a deadbeat dad and the mother does not even have to put his name on the birth certificate. 
I recall an interview on Radio New Zealand where Sean Plunket asked the Minister: “What if the mother claims the father is dead and she won’t name him?”. I have to say the Minister was a bit stumped. If a mother claims the father of her child is dead and she will not name him how on earth can anybody check up on that? There is no way around that. So it appears this bill will do nothing to address the abuse of the welfare system whereby women are not naming the father of their children. 
Those women are denying their children the right to know who their father is. In some cases they are denying that dad the right to take part in his child’s life. Meanwhile those who want to abuse the system are getting away scot-free with not having to pay child support for 18 years and no Government is doing anything about it. I find the whole thing completely irresponsible and this bill is just a token measure. It will not address those deep and difficult issues. We need a Government tough on welfare fraud in order to do that.