Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4)

I speak against the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4), which I consider to be flawed legislation. Supposedly, it hopes to wipe off half a billion dollars of penalty interest owed, so that parents who have been feeling very overwhelmed by that financial responsibility will, at the stroke of a pen, take on their responsibility. We have to ask whether that will work. I do not think it will work.

Half of the penalty interest owed is owed by expatriate parents—parents who are not living in New Zealand and who have clearly isolated themselves geographically from their children. It is simplistic to think that those parents, at the stroke of a pen, will suddenly face up to a new responsibility, when they have not done so already.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: It won’t happen.

No, it will not happen.

The timing is very odd, indeed. In 2000 the total debt owed by those parents was $400 million.

💬 David Bennett: $400 million?

Yes, $400 million—huge. In 2005 it has suddenly gone up to $1 billion. Why did the Government not act in 2000? I will tell people why it did not act. Members of the Government did not act until 2005 because an election was coming their way.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: They had their chance.

They had their chance. The Government introduced this bill in August this year—a month before the election. It was window dressing. In 2000 the shameful amount of $400 million of debt was clearly just loose change rattling around in the Government’s pockets.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: They didn’t care.

The Government did not care.

What sort of signal does this bill give to the community? It gives a terrible signal. It tells people that parents who have been paying their child support in full and on time should ask what the point of doing that is. It discourages responsible parents and rewards irresponsible parents. The bill tells responsible parents that nanny State will look after their children—or, better still, that “mum and dad State” will look after their families. What about other groups in the community? Is this legislation fair? I know of a private group that is doing important work in the health area in Auckland, under contract. It has, through no fault of its own, to pay penalty interest rates on its tax, which it has been unable to pay. Will the Government race to its aid? I do not think so. What about a family that has fallen behind on its mortgage repayments and is looking at losing the family home?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Will the Government help them?

No, it will not. The Government certainly will not be rushing to such a family’s aid, but it will rush to the aid of parents who have not been paying for their children.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What about the students?

I will get to that issue in a minute.

There are two new exemptions from paying child support in this bill. Young people under 16 will be exempt so that they can get on with their studies, which is fair enough. I am also pleased to see that the victims of sex offences will be exempt where the sex offender has been convicted. But the victims of sex offences may not always be able to take the offender to court and see that offender convicted, so I think that exemption needs to be reworked. If this bill goes to the select committee, the committee will need to look at that area.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Good.

Yes.

This legislation, in my opinion, is dishonest. It actually disguises the fact that a debt has been owed, and the hard-working taxpayer has to carry the can yet again under this Labour Government. The situation is not dissimilar to that of hospital waiting lists. This year the Ministry of Health absolutely slashed hospital waiting lists by reclassifying patients, disguising the fact that thousands of people were waiting for important operations.

💬 Paula Bennett: Shame!

It is shameful and dishonest. There is also the student loan policy. This bill is not dissimilar to the student loan policy, where the incentive is for students to borrow the maximum amount of money, but there is no incentive to pay any of it back earlier than is absolutely necessary.

I think that this legislation is sloppy, flawed, and dishonest. It will not work, and it needs to be chucked out.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) be referred to the Social Services Committee.