Hutchison Paul: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3664] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). I note that the chairperson of the Social Services Committee Georgina Beyer has admitted in her comments that for once this bill was expedited quickly. However that is one of the great problems with regard to it. When we look at the main purpose of the bill we see it is to increase the compliance of parents who are not currently meeting their child support obligations. The committee was also concerned about liable parents who hide significant amounts of income and assets in order to avoid paying child support. That is quite right. But what is quite outstanding about the legislation which affects many children is that it in no way mentions or directs its concern or care to the children themselves. 
It is quite extraordinary that prior to the 2005 election a group called the Agenda for Children which represented something like 400 different children’s organisations made a submission to the various parties stating that one of the things we should do in legislation is to have child-impact reporting. But there is absolutely no sign in the bill or in the deliberations on it that it actually mentions children. In fact in submission No. 26 which came from Child Advocacy Services the point made by Mr Murray a coordinator for that group was that there was no mention in the bill of the care or welfare of the child being an important or a paramount concern. When we heard Georgina Beyer say the bill was expedited quickly we must agree that yes it was but I think we are going to have continued problems with the legislation because of that. 
One of the reasons that National is not supporting the bill is the point that my colleague Judith Collins made: the Government is writing off half a billion dollars which it will expect other hard-working New Zealanders to pay for. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Aw! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: We hear Clayton Cosgrove once again say: “Aw!”. We are talking about half a billion dollars of hard-earned taxpayers’ money that he is writing off. That surely must send the wrong signals because it is being written off for individuals who have not bothered for one reason or another to look after or take responsibility for their children. I hope Clayton Cosgrove will come to his senses and start to realise that it is hugely important to send the right signals to parents throughout New Zealand and that responsible parenting is at the heart of what the bill should be about. But Clayton Cosgrove a relatively new Minister who struts his way around New Zealand saying we should take care of every dollar we spend is writing off half a billion dollars. 
One of the other important issues is that the new Minister of Revenue Mr Dunne from United Future somehow or another did a deal with the Labour Government and what did they come up with? They said they had to get this bill through so they would write off the half a billion dollars. Well it is a great entrée for the member for Ohariu-Belmont the new Minister of Revenue to start off his career again with the Labour Government by joining Labour in writing off half a billion dollars of very hard-earned taxpayers’ money! 
I certainly agree that the bill could have achieved some very important aspects but unfortunately it has not. We in the National Party are also concerned that the bill does not sufficiently protect responsible parents and their children from those liable parents who hide significant assets. I think once again that Judith Collins— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You would know a few. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I wonder what Clayton Cosgrove is up to now in saying I would know a few. Well I can say that many people come to my constituency clinic in Port Waikato and I imagine to Clayton Cosgrove’s clinic and comment on the very concerning problem in New Zealand that all sorts of mechanisms are available through trusts whereby a liable parent can indeed hide the responsibility and avoid the responsibility of ensuring his or her children are looked after. 
It was quite fascinating to hear a submission from one individual who came down from Rotorua. He said the heart of the issue is that parents want to put their love for their children first. I think Clayton Cosgrove would agree with that. That parent said that for him it was a privilege to have the custody of his children and that if he lost out financially because of it then he was not very bothered about that. He also said everybody hates the system and it should be about both sides wanting the best for their children. 
That is one of the points that is a worry when I hear Georgina Beyer saying proudly that the select committee rushed this bill through. It has rushed through the writing off of half a billion dollars but it has also rushed through the very important sentiment expressed by the submitter that the system right now— 
Georgina Beyer 
: That member was on the select committee. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
—is not optimal and— 
Georgina Beyer 
: That man talks with a forked tongue. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: We have some very inane interjections from the Government side. I think they are talking about forked tongues and I do not think they can afford to do so. Neither Georgina Beyer nor Clayton Cosgrove can afford to talk about forked tongues particularly when they are writing off half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ funds and particularly when they did not take heed of that very important submission which basically said the interests of the child should be put at the centre of the legislation. Yet as one submitter pointed out concern for the paramountcy of the child is not mentioned anywhere in the bill. That just shows how badly off focus the tired old Labour Government has become. 
The point I was making was that indeed a large number of people throughout the country both men and women maliciously hide their assets. The one that Judith Collins was talking about had something like half a dozen sports cars: some Mercedes-Benzes Jaguars and various others— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: And the odd lawyer who designed—Judith Collins would know about that. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well no I think he may have been from down in Clayton Cosgrove’s electorate and Clayton Cosgrove does nothing about it. That is the problem. The Labour Government which is all too ready to rush this bill through forgets about the basic needs of the child and that is what we are concerned about. 
Certainly the Government should have been much much more thoughtful about this bill. The Government should not rush the bill through on this occasion because it has made the whole situation very much more difficult. In fact the Child Advocacy Services coordinator is opposed to the bill because it contravenes accepted practice regarding retrospective legislation and accounting policies. That is pretty basic and one would think that Clayton Cosgrove would take notice of it. If the Government is to remove the separation between “personal” and “corporate” for child support purposes why is it not being removed for general taxation purposes also? The Child Advocacy Services coordinator also says the bill fails to differentiate between liable parents who do take responsibility for their children and those who do not. 
That is very much at the heart of the reason why the National Party is not supporting this bill which could have had a great deal of promise.