Tolley Anne: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5138] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 Judith Collins put it succinctly—when we take a situation where you have used taxpayers’ money wrongly and you refuse to pay it back— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is a whip and she knows not to bring the Chairperson into the debate. That is about the third time today— 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: This is the first time I have been on my feet today. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No—I said this is the third warning I have given to speakers from the member’s party today. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: When someone uses taxpayers’ money for a purpose that was not intended and then refuses to pay it back this Government passes legislation retrospectively and wipes that debt. There is a name for that but we are not allowed to use it. 
As a member of the Social Services Committee I sat through the representations from the Inland Revenue Department about the purpose of this bill and I want to read to the Chamber a quick sentence from its briefing to the select committee: “The main outcome sought from the changes proposed in this bill is an increase in the collection of child support through improved levels of compliance.” I do not actually have a problem with that. I support that—I think it is great. The briefing goes on to state: “Under the major change proposed the Government will forgo the collection of some incremental penalties to provide an incentive for non-payers to begin making payments of financial support again.” I have not understood that and I have asked the officials all the way through this process how it is going to work. I did not understand the philosophy—that is until I saw what has unfolded in this House over the last few months regarding the Labour Government’s spending of taxpayers’ money. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Unless I am misinformed the purpose of the Committee stage is to discuss the select committee report on the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) the purpose of which is to increase the compliance of parents who are failing to meet their obligations. This line of argument seems to me to be very clearly irrelevant to that bill and therefore outside the proper scope of the debate. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: Speaking to the point of order I question the Minister on that. The line I have taken is I think quite clear. I am discussing the philosophy that was put to the select committee by the Inland Revenue Department and that is entirely relevant to the bill. In fact I read from the briefing made to the select committee by the Inland Revenue Department. I am discussing the philosophy of the changes proposed in Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take what both members have said but I remind the member that there has been quite a lot of irrelevance during the speeches and members need to come back to the bill. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: The difficulty I had with the proposals in this bill was the wiping of penalties of half a billion dollars owed to the New Zealand taxpayer in order to promote the nutty idea that by getting rid of debt we will encourage more people to pay their child support. That philosophy was to me completely unsubstantiated until I saw the behaviour of this Government when it applied this philosophy to other instances where it spends taxpayers’ money and when called upon to repay it brings into Parliament legislation to account for and legalise such activity retrospectively. That is exactly the same— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I ask you to reflect on the fact that the member herself has just taken this debate to other bills which by definition must be outside the scope of this bill. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: Speaking to the point of order I raise again the fact that I am discussing the philosophy behind the changes proposed in this bill. In order to discuss the philosophy behind the changes it is entirely legitimate that the changes are compared to those in other bills that may or may not appear in this House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Earlier in the member’s speech she began down the path of election-spending issues and one can only assume that the legislation to which she now refers is legislation that has not yet been introduced into the House. It rather bemuses me how it can be relevant to this bill for her to speculate about a bill that has not been introduced by the Government on a political issue that is completely separate from and irrelevant to this bill. I invite you Madam Chair to consider whether it would bring disorder into this Chamber for MPs on the Government side to begin an analysis of the Opposition’s acceptance of trust funds from secret donors or whether that would be outside the scope in its view. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the bill and look at what is in this bill not what might be in another bill. I caution the member to come back to the bill. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: The purpose of this bill before the Committee today is to wipe the almost half a billion dollars owed by people who have used taxpayers’ money to support their children and who are now refusing to pay it back. This bill wipes that debt with the concept that in doing so—as the Social Services Committee was advised by the officials—other people will be encouraged to pay their child support. 
All the way through this process I have questioned that philosophy. I do not understand how wiping people’s debt when they refuse to pay will encourage them to continue paying any child support. I make the point again without reference to any other bills that may or may not come into this Chamber: I did not understand the philosophy until I saw the behaviour of the Government but I understand it now—we can use other people’s money to pay our bills. When called to account we can bring into the House legislation that retrospectively gets rid of debt in order to move forward. That is a philosophy it is the philosophy behind this bill and it does not make sense. 
I do not understand why we are in this Chamber wiping off half a billion dollars of debt—of taxpayers’ money owed by parents who have not bothered to support their children or who have not bothered to come forward to make arrangements when their circumstances changed. This Government says it is OK to take taxpayers’ money. It says it will forgive that debt. This Government will look forward and move on having passed legislation that wipes the debt and will start off with a clean slate. It believes that somehow that action will make people suddenly come forward and pay their child support. 
 The National Party believes that parents should support their children and that children have a right to expect that their parents will support them. But we also have a right to have a Government that abides by a philosophy that treasures and values the money people pay in taxes and gives some account to the fact that people have paid their taxes and that the money is not there to be used at the whim of a Government as it sees fit. It is a very bad signal to bring retrospective legislation into the House to wipe those debts whether they are in bills before us or in bills that have been talked about in this House. That was the first point; the first role of this legislation. 
The other big change this bill produces is the ability to allow the commissioner not just custodial parents to initiate a review of the financial affairs of liable parents. There were a great many submissions on this matter some of which informed a rather surprised Social Services Committee that in fact this bill was not needed and that there were avenues.