Hutchison Paul: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5142] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Chairperson for the opportunity to speak on the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). I note that the purpose of the bill is to improve the level of compliance with financial support obligations so that more children receive the financial support to which they are entitled and so that the Government maximises revenue receipts to offset the cost of State provision of financial support. But as my colleague Judith Collins so aptly pointed out this bill will waive $500 million that should have gone to children and that signal is one we would hope would not come from a responsible Government in New Zealand. The Labour Government is clearly encouraging New Zealand parents to be irresponsible. I think my colleague Judith Collins mentioned that in 2003 the debt owed by liable New Zealand parents in Australia amounted to about $80 million but in 2006 the debt owed has now increased to a whacking $280 million. This Government said that it would increase measures to track down those liable parents. How successful has it been? It has been successful 400 percent—in the diametrically opposite direction. 
The fundamental reason for the Child Support Act 1991 was to ensure parental responsibility for the support of children. We in National believe that that sentiment is absolutely appropriate. But we see the dismal record of the Labour Government’s rhetoric; we see that not only have liable parents in Australia increased their debt 400 percent over 2 or 3 years but the Labour Government is about to waive $500 million that should have gone to children. That is the sort of money that could go to child health that is the sort of money that could go to child education and that is the sort of money that could shorten waiting lists for children. 
I am deeply concerned about several things in this bill and they are these. The chairman of the Social Services Committee Georgina Beyer has said that the bill should be rushed through because it is so important to reset the situation and ensure that the collection of that revenue takes place in a much more efficient effective way. The bill was introduced on 5 August 2005. As my colleague Paula Bennett pointed out this bill engenders huge emotions amongst submitters and amongst many many liable parents throughout New Zealand. The submissions that came in were very critical of the Inland Revenue Department very critical of the way the Labour Government has arranged collection methodology in New Zealand and very critical that this bill will not solve the problems. 
In fact an authority Judge Walsh wrote to Judge Boshier the Principal Family Court Judge regarding new Part 6B inserted by clause 24—the part that allows departure from the formula assessment of child support and is one of the major areas of the bill. He said: “After reflecting on the whole scheme of Part 6B I am left with the impression it will be effectively a toothless provision.” It is a huge worry that the major part of this bill is judged by one of the practitioners who really know what goes on in courts to be a “toothless provision.” The purpose of inserting new Part 6B is to ensure that parents’ child support liabilities accurately reflect their ability to provide financial assistance for their children. We heard some pretty heart-rending submissions in regard to the way that under trusts and various other mechanisms liable parents can hide those funds.