Collins Judith: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5156] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I must say that in this debate I have been very disappointed in the Government. I do not believe that any of the Government members on the Social Services Committee who looked at the bill have bothered to take a call. I can say only that the Government is clearly not interested in this legislation. Government members have left it to the Opposition and to United Future and New Zealand First—who are actually part of the Government really—to do all the work for them. That is because of course the Labour Government does not really support parental responsibility. 
One of the things I thought was quite good in the bill when I first saw it—I think it is good to give credit when it is due because it is not very often I get to do that with Labour—was the promotion of the idea that the Inland Revenue Department can go in and look at situations where for instance a liable parent has a lot of assets in his or her control or even owns a lot of assets or has a lot of income frozen around various companies and trusts. The Inland Revenue Department can ask how much money that man or woman actually has and whether they should be paying more than the minimum amount of about $11 a week. I thought that was quite fair frankly because I know of many parents particularly women who are sole parents looking after their children who are working and not on the benefit—they are actually earning and receiving their own money—but who are being ripped off by former partners who are hiding behind various schemes. So I thought that was a good idea and so did the whole of the National caucus. 
Then officials from the Inland Revenue Department turned up to the select committee. We said to them that we had a submission from a woman who had given us full details of every asset her former partner owned and controlled. He had hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of classic cars. He had millions of dollars’ worth of property. She provided the officials and us with certificates of title references valuations addresses—she provided us with everything. We asked the officials from the Inland Revenue Department whether she would be one of those people whom we could help through this bill because we would love to be able to do that—she is a good person she is on to it she is trying to do her best but she has got that person out there who was a partner and who is supposedly the father—and who needs frankly something I cannot say in this Chamber because I would be called unparliamentary but he certainly needs that done to him and I think we can all agree. But the officials said: “Oh maybe … possibly … well that would depend.” They gave us no undertaking that they would investigate that rotter—because that is what he is. They did not exclaim that that was exactly the sort of situation the bill provided for; they said it would be up to the commissioner. 
Well what is the point of this legislation if on the one hand we are going to write off a whole lot of debt owed by delinquent fathers and mothers and say: “Oh it does not matter. We will just forgive that—and if you are really good we will not give you any more penalties.”? They are not going to pay. They have skipped off to Australia anyway and they are thumbing their noses at us the taxpayers. According to the Government’s own figures those liable parents just in Australia owe $280 million at the moment let alone those further afield. Then we had the Inland Revenue Department officials saying they might act—but they might not. They could not give us an undertaking that the properties this chap had—a couple of pages’ worth of them—would be looked into. 
Paula Bennett 
: What’s this going to do? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It will not do a thing. This bill is yet another bandaid to keep people happy. This bill is simply being used to buy votes. That is what is up. The bill is about saying to liable parents that it is OK and that the Government forgives them for being delinquent. It is too bad for the poor old taxpayer and $280 million—what does that mean? Well it is only a few billboards frankly under Labour. On the other hand they are saying to custodial parents—parents who are trying to do their best—that they will do something for them. They are not going to do a thing and that was made absolutely plain to us at the select committee. 
We were really hopeful when this bill first came in. We on this side of the Chamber all gave speeches about it. We said that we had some hope for the bill. It was an attempt to deal with the really difficult situation of fathers and mothers who wish to be basically sperm and egg donors only and who are quite frankly quite happy for every other parent to pay their way for them.