Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4)

This is a particularly interesting part of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4), because many people have wondered just how many people it was meant to assist. Part 2 is really about stopping people from having to pay the liable parent contribution if they have been the victims of sex abuse, rape, or things like that. It is also about getting information through about sex offenders for the purposes of those child support exemptions. So it is about providing exemptions.

Many of us on the Social Services Committee wondered just how many people we were talking about here—how many people who had been the victims of sex abuse would end up being liable parents. If a woman who has been a rape victim is now a liable parent, that implies to me that the rapist or the rapist’s family has custody of the child. For the life of me, I could not quite understand why we in this country would be letting rapists and their families have custody of a child.

💬 Paula Bennett: The Minister could take a call on that.

The Minister may be able to set us right, because certainly in the select committee we did not seem to get any sensible argument on that issue, or any indication as to why that would be the case. Some of us thought that maybe it was to address the situation of a young man being sexually abused by an older woman, and that is a possibility. Perhaps that is the situation that the Minister is trying to deal with, but many of us were quite puzzled because we did not hear any particular evidence of that happening. Given that this is quite technical legislation, we could not quite understand how that measure fitted into the whole tenor of the bill and its writing-off of penalties.

Certainly, the Minister has taken some calls about how parents want to be good parents. I am sorry to tell him that although most parents are good parents and want to be good parents, there are some ratbags out there. I see he is agreeing with me. Unfortunately, just saying to those who wish to be ratbags, who are ratbags, and who think only of themselves—not of their children—that their penalties will be written off if they are good and pay the arranged amount will not bring about a change of heart.

I will go into a slightly personal matter here, if I may. I had a grandfather who, just before the Great Depression, skipped off overseas back to England, leaving my poor old grandmother with seven little children and without a scrap of maintenance during that time. He left her and ran off with another woman—as men do; and, no doubt, with a younger, flasher version than my grandmother. Having seven kids to look after—in her case it would have been eight, but one child died—does not do a hell of a lot for the figure, frankly, and neither is it likely to do much for one’s disposition, particularly when one has a feckless husband. I do not think for a moment that anyone told my grandfather that he needed to pay any penalty, and at no stage in his life did he ever front up with anything for poor old grandma and the children. So I do not quite understand why we are supposed to believe that feckless blokes, and a few women as well, will suddenly have a change of heart and become wonderful, nice, kind people who take their responsibilities seriously and look after their children, when, frankly, they have never done so.

This part also contains particularly important information about the information that the Ministry of Justice and the New Zealand Police are able to provide concerning sex offences for the purpose of child support exemptions. That is not particularly an area the National Party has any great problems with, although we would want to make sure that persons who have been the victims of sex offences do not have their private information unduly displayed to the whole of the Inland Revenue Department. I would like to hear from the Minister about that, because I think it would be very difficult for people who have been rape victims to come out anywhere and say to a stranger working in the Inland Revenue Department: “Hey, look at me. I’m a rape victim.” I just wonder how those people will be protected, and I think it is incredibly important that we understand what this part is supposed to deal with.

I rise to speak very briefly. A question has been raised by members opposite about the clauses surrounding victims of sexual abuse. In part, this arose from the gender-neutralisation provisions that are now in the Crimes Act. Most frequently, this would arise when a young male could be abused, potentially by an older woman who subsequently has a child. It could also arise when the child of a female victim of abuse is placed with foster parents.

Beyond that, I comment briefly that Judith Collins, the member who has just resumed her seat, has had a very expensive speech—expensive in terms of votes, I imagine, for the Opposition—because I cannot imagine that too many separated fathers would be likely to vote for National after having been impugned by her in such a sad way. If her best argument against this bill is that anybody who has got himself or herself into a separation situation is liable to continue to default and treat this as an incentive, then I think that simply does not accord with the reality of the situations people find themselves in. I say to Ms Collins that she might pause to reflect on her colleague who took the debate to the area of GST repayment—of itself a fascinating subject, but one that we would leave for another day.

I thank the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, for explaining that point to us. In fact, Part 2 is a very small part of the bill. It is very technical and quite specific. One of the submissions to the Social Services Committee raised the issue of sexual abuse. It states—and this backs up what the Minister has just said—“The Act is so fundamentally flawed that no amount of tinkering can fix its many anomalies. Having said that, there are some positive improvements in this bill. Most notable is the exclusion of liability of young boys who have been sexually abused. The time it has taken for this change demonstrates how sexist this legislation is. Can anyone imagine a girl who is sexually abused having to pay money to her abuser?”. In fact, the bill also makes provision for that second example, when—as I understand from the Minister—the subsequent child is then placed in a foster home.

Part 2 makes amendments to the Tax Administration Act and does things like requiring secrecy about the information that is shared, making sure that the information is shared with the right people only, and allowing for the transfer of information between the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Justice in order to confirm the information regarding those sex offences and the victims. I think it would be fair to say that this permanent exemption in the bill for victims of sex offences was something all of us on the select committee agreed was timely and was something we wanted to see happen—notwithstanding that the National Party is opposing the majority of the bill. The concept of someone who had gone through the trauma of being abused sexually then having to take financial responsibility for the upkeep of the child resulting from the rape—whether or not the victim of the rape was male or female—is quite abhorrent and not one we would want to see continued in legislation.

Mr Chairperson, I am sorry you curtailed the debate on the earlier part, because Part 1 is the substantial part of the bill, and here we are left debating Part 2, which is very narrow in terms of what can be discussed. It relates entirely to provisions that make this exemption for victims of sexual offences not liable to financial contributions for ongoing child support. The new exemptions are included in a new Part 5A of the Child Support Act 1991, and that restructures those provisions that relate to the exemptions, making some remedial changes to them. It also contains provisions that allow hospital patients a period of 3 months after discharge in which to apply for an exemption.

Another provision in the legislation grants an exemption where a young person who is liable to pay child support attends school. The select committee agreed that the focus of that young person should be on attaining some educational achievements and qualifications rather than on having to leave school in order to provide an income to support the child. So there were exemptions for young people under the age of 16 in order that they could remain at school and attain some educational qualifications. In making that sort of decision we are balancing the needs of the child to have a reasonable amount of support from his or her parents with the responsibility, I guess, that falls upon the State to ensure that young people have the opportunity to create options in their lives. In that instance, the State then accepts the responsibility of looking after the child.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). This is the part that deals with amendments to the Tax Administration Act 1994 and also where information regarding sex offences for purposes of child support exemptions is dealt with.

I must say that I, too, was deeply disappointed that the Labour Government chose to cut off the important debate on Part 1, because it does relate, very much, to Part 2. I see the Government member Sue Moroney is shaking her head and saying that this was not important. Can I tell her that Part 1 was the substance of this bill, and it is very interesting that the Labour Government has chosen to cut off the debate abruptly so that it is not embarrassed by it any further. The Government should be embarrassed by it.

As I said, Part 2 is confined to amendments to the Tax Administration Act and the area of providing information concerning sex offences. I think it is really important that the Minister said the Government has a very hard problem with this bill and that it honestly wants to do something about it.

💬 Judith Collins: Yeah, right!

Yeah, right! But he also said that the solution is not perfect.

As I went around New Zealand and heard some of the submissions, I heard that right now the collection agencies get it wrong time and time again. In fact, one liable parent told me that, firstly, he had an estimation that his liability was $270,000. He rang back 24 hours later and was told the figure was $3,000. He did not know where it was. He was absolutely deeply upset by this. He rang back again and was told that the person he had spoken to had gone on holiday, that he could not speak to that person, and that someone else would talk to him. That person would not be at the call centre down in Dunedin where he had rang last time, but would be up in Whangarei. This is the sort of mismanagement that typifies this Labour Government right throughout its rotten core.

The problem that so many liable parents find is deep frustration with the inability of the Labour Government to be able to properly govern and to organise good, effective, and sensitive management of liable parents. Some of them become so upset by the system that, basically, they are unable to cope. They get into a revolving situation where they increase their debt and things get worse and worse.

When we see clause 51 and clause 52, “Officers to maintain secrecy”—

💬 Judith Collins: Do we believe it?

That is absolutely right—do we believe it?

💬 Judith Collins: Look at the threats of the Minister. The Minister has been making threats about it.

Well, the Minister has been making threats and that is of great worry. When we see this question of the officers having to maintain secrecy, of course they should maintain secrecy. But with the frustrations liable parents find when they have to go from one end of the country to the other and go from one call centre to another, and not one individual is responsible to go round and ensure that an appropriate deal is worked out for that individual, it is no wonder that this Labour Government is actually wiping off $500 million of debt.

The other area in Part 2 is new section 85K, “New Zealand Police and Ministry of Justice to provide information concerning sex offences for purposes of child support exemptions”, and new section 85L, which are to be inserted in the Tax Administration Act by clause 53 of the bill. Like many other members, I think this is a sensible part of the bill. It was interesting to hear submissions about some situations most of us had not thought about—for instance, that of a young male child who is abused.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I advise the member, when he has finished his speech, to look at Speaker’s ruling 74/1(1).

I look forward to looking at Speaker’s ruling 74/1(1). I will finish my speech by saying that I vividly remember a situation at Wesley College in my electorate, where a young male was abused by one of the teachers. Under the old system, if that teacher had become pregnant, perhaps the young male could have been made liable for the support of the baby. It is quite right that this exemption is there. Obviously, when a young female has been abused and does not keep the baby, it is exactly the same situation. National agrees that this small part of the bill is sensible and appropriate. There are other exemptions extended to people in hospital, people in jail, and people attending school. We think that these exemptions are right and proper.

But, as I said before, I am deeply concerned that there was a cut-off of the debate on Part 1, which is inextricably related to Part 2, by this Labour Government. It is almost certainly because the Government is embarrassed by the fact not only that the bill is sending the wrong signals to responsible New Zealanders by waiving $500 million but also that major technicians—the Law Society, the Chief Judge, and the New Zealand Society of Accountants—have made submissions on this legislation and all have grave concerns about it.

We had the chairperson of the Social Services Committee saying that the bill should be rushed through. This is a bill that should not have been rushed through. As the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, has said, it still has many imperfections in it—and the Labour Government is cutting off the debate at a time when it is very, very important. This is typical of a Labour Government that just cannot really organise anything, let alone a very important bill that deals with children.

Some time ago I had the privilege of being the Associate Minister of Revenue, and back in those days I was involved in the Cabinet process around the early design of this Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). I raise that because it was indeed several years ago. It is a pleasure to see the bill before the House today, but I think that nobody in the House would call that process rushed through. Rather, we commend the Social Services Committee for its thorough consideration of the submissions, and commend its report to the House. It contains a strong majority recommendation that the bill be passed forthwith.

Perhaps I could repeat my offer to the Opposition that if its members have any constructive suggestions to add as to how the problems might be resolved, then I am sure the public of New Zealand would be very interested. At the moment, the Opposition gives every impression of being a tired, hopeless Opposition, which has consigned itself to those benches opposite for many, many years to come.

I want to refer to a couple of submissions that relate to Part 2 of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). One was a submission—I think it was submission No. 3—from Robert Kilkolly who talked about the fact that the contribution made by liable parents should entail a fair and equal share of child-related expenses from both parents, by taking into account the income of both parents.

This is one of those issues that fell outside the framework of this amendment bill, but in the notes that members of the Social Services Committee got from the officials, there was a very encouraging note made on the submission to say that the very excellent Minister of Revenue has already instructed officials to consider whether recognition should be given to lower levels of shared care than the current threshold of 40 percent of nights. That is a very encouraging thing. I think it is good to note that while we are dealing right now with some recognised issues, the ongoing work on this matter is being done.

The other thing I want to talk about is the area of exemptions, which is clarified in this legislation, particularly the area of exemptions for victims of sexual offences.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Just before we broke for tea, I was talking about exemptions for liable parent payments. Those people fall into two broad groups. The first group is those who are not earning income. They are “kept”, in the sense they are either in long-term hospital care or in prison and therefore unable to contribute to liable parent payments. The second group, which has been mentioned by earlier speakers, is those who have been the victim of sexual offences. I do not think anybody has mentioned the point that the last thing victims want is ongoing contact of any kind with their assailant. They do not want that person’s money or to have any information that links them to any Government department whereby their names are linked through a process by which payments are made. They want to have no contact at all. This provision acknowledges that very real requirement on the part of victims and honours it.

Part 2 tidies up a lot of bits and pieces. I mentioned earlier some concerns raised by submitters about fair and equal sharing of child-related expenses, taking into account the income of both parents. This is one of those issues where political parties, irrespective of party affiliations, should make some commitment to see that cause advanced in the future. I mentioned earlier that the Minister of Revenue, the Hon Peter Dunne, is aware that submitters raised a whole lot of extremely worthwhile issues for future consideration. He has already instructed his officials to consider whether the current 40 percent of nights threshold for child support should be reviewed. He considers that to be a very blunt instrument, and when we look at what has been happening with new amendments to the law in Australia, they are looking at the whole issue of how much it costs to raise a child and whether we should have some fixed cost that we all acknowledge is maybe age-appropriate in terms of its determination.

I want to make one point in that regard, because several submitters felt very aggrieved that as their wages went up, if they got a second job, or if their financial situation improved, the requirement by the Inland Revenue Department for their payments went up as well, and they felt very concerned about that. We should remember that we are talking about the needs of children, and, in a family where mum and dad are together, if their financial circumstances improve then the children are the beneficiaries of that improvement. When we adjust liable-parent payments to reflect improvements in income, because it should not make any difference whether mum and dad are together or are living apart, the child should be the beneficiary of those changes.

I am very keen to talk about Part 2, and must admit that I too felt a bit confused about the issue of sexual victims not being liable, and that side of things, but having had the officials explain it a bit more, I find it quite necessary in many respects and see the understanding around sex offences, for the purposes of exemptions from child support payments.

I suppose that brings up the whole exemptions thing, and it is something I have been quite surprised about in the debate. Minister Cunliffe mentioned it many times, and that is the huge amount of debt. At times the Minister was talking about $270,000, I heard him throw out. I heard similar calls about the level of debt, and I wonder why we do not ask how and why that level of debt is accumulating. That is the big question. The Minister gave the example of someone earning $30,000 who has accumulated a debt of $270,000, and in the Minister’s words that is “penalties and debt” in all fairness, and the person was in a situation of not being able to repay the debt because it was too big. But how did someone get into that situation in the first place?

I am pleased to hear that United Future is looking at addressing some of the other things in the bill, because nothing else gets to us more than just how wrong so much of it is. I cannot stand here and come up with all the answers, although Minister Cunliffe kept asking us to come up with the answers, because he seemed incapable himself. We cannot come up with all of the answers in this case, but there are far more questions raised. What came out of the submission process was a lot of extremely upset people, and one wonders how they accumulate all of that debt. A degree of them must be getting into that level of debt purely because they do not think they should pay.

The National Party wholeheartedly and vehemently believes that the department should be coming down hard on those people. In no way should they be looking at having anything written off—whether it is penalties or debt for repayment. If they believe they should not be paying, then if anything we should be coming down harder on them.

But that is not the whole picture, and that is very much how it has been painted—that everybody gets themselves into a bit of debt, and everybody who has got themselves into a bit of trouble is the bad person. We hear a bit about angry men but I can say there are some angry women out there, as well. It is across the board.

💬 Judith Collins: They are busy being mothers.

They are busy being mothers. I think the big question that is not being addressed, and that I would be interested in the Minister addressing, is how we are getting into these sorts of situations and how it is that presumably quite good people find themselves in a place where they do not get the answers they need and are confused about their repayments. At one stage we heard so many examples in the submission process of someone who one week gets a bill for $3,000 and the next week a bill for $18,000 and rings up and is told that the department actually owes that person. That sort of stuff really raises alarm bells for us because we wonder how we can have people feeling like they are paying fairly.

I want to stress that what really hits us hard with this one is those people who believe that they do not have to pay. They believe they can leave a relationship and, as such, they can leave the children. They cannot, because they have an obligation and a responsibility. We will fight that to the day we die because it is something that we stand for, and we will not ever back away from it. It is about responsibility and self-responsibility. Those people who believe they should not be looking after their own, those people who believe they can be hands-off, are the ones who need to front up, and they should not have those sorts of penalties withdrawn. If anything, we should be increasing the penalties, when it comes to it.

I was looking at the administration side of things in Part 2 and amendments to the Tax Administration Act 1994, and was reading through with regard to sex offences. Before the dinner break, I note, the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Cunliffe, decided to bring up section 85I, “Use of information supplied under section 85H”. He thought he would be a wee bit funny—

I move, That the question be now put.

As I was saying, I was quite disturbed to hear the Minister mention “trust accounts and the National Party” and what that would mean in respect of the use of information provision. I say that is absolutely appalling, because the bill talks about any information via the Inland Revenue Department. The Minister in the chair before dinner—[Interruption] Minister Benson-Pope obviously was not listening, so let me remind him. Minister Cunliffe took a call and we were talking about privacy and people’s information being safe. That is extremely important to us. Those sex offenders, those people who are sex victims, and those sorts of people—we were very concerned about their information being private, and their privacy. However, the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Cunliffe, felt that that was an appropriate time to make a crack and a bit of a joke about trust accounts and the Inland Revenue Department. I would like to say that I found it absolutely appalling, given the Act and the amendments to it in this bill that are looking after these important issues, that he should be entering into that sort of debate. It is certainly not an issue that we take lightly and we find it so important that people have their information treated accordingly, as it deserves to be treated under Part 2. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.