Hutchison Paul: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:508] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I certainly detected a touch of evangelism if not biblicalism from the previous speaker on this very concerning bill. It is a very concerning bill when one looks back to the original Child Support Act 1991 whose fundamental principle was to ensure that liable parents were held responsible. If one looks at the  
Briefing for the incoming Minister of Revenue—2005 
 and at child support and the way that this debt has mounted over the last 6 years of the Labour Government then it becomes even more concerning. In 1999 the combined debt plus interest penalties amounted to about $300 million but it now amounts to $1 billion. That is what this Labour Government has caused over the last 6 years—a mounting debt. The Government has not shown interest in ensuring that parents are indeed taking up the responsibility of their liabilities to their children. That is a disgrace. 
Steve Chadwick 
: This bill will fix it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I hear Steve Chadwick the member from Rotorua saying that this bill will fix that. It is absolutely the opposite. What this bill really does is encourage liable parents to do the very opposite and the debt burden will mount only higher. 
It was quite remarkable to hear David Cunliffe giving the evangelical Labour Party response because after all this bill came into being only about 6 weeks before the election. Peter Dunne the new Minister of Revenue has to support it and in effect give away $500 million of taxpayers’ funds for a debt that should have been paid by liable parents who have been irresponsible. Instead that debt will be paid by parents who are responsible. That is what is happening. On the one hand $500 million of debt should have been paid by liable parents who have been irresponsible and on the other hand United Future is basically twisted because of some confidence and supply agreement and has been put into the position of extracting $500 million from the responsible taxpayer. [ 
Interruption 
] Is she saying I am too nice for that? It is absolutely vital that we make it clear to liable parents that they have a responsibility. I certainly heard David Cunliffe say that every parliamentarian cares for our children. That $500 million could have gone to child cancer or to child education. Instead what is happening? It will be coming from responsible taxpayers. That is the real essence of this bill. It is a sop by United Future to the Labour Party. 
I accept all of the points that my colleague Judith Collins made regarding the exceptions but I just want to make a few other points. Firstly the fundamental principle behind the Child Support Act 1991 is that parents have an obligation to provide financial support for their children but that indeed is what this Labour Party is diluting. 
Secondly the introduction to that legislation made the point that the Government recognised the need for the State to supplement that support when the parents had insufficient income to provide an adequate level but that in the first instance the parents had to meet their responsibility to the best of their ability. The essence of the Act was to provide a system for making the philosophy behind it practical and workable. But once again the Labour Government under the guise of suggesting the system is practical and workable is basically transferring the responsibility from those liable parents to hard-working New Zealand taxpayers. 
Another point made in the original Act is that it is designed to reflect the ability of the non-custodial parent to provide financial support for that person’s child or children and is based on the person’s income as declared for income tax purposes. That is exactly the principle that should apply here. But it goes on to state that when there are special circumstances that make the amount payable under the formula clearly inadequate or excessive a custodian or a liable parent can apply to the Family Court for an order to depart from that formula. All those things are in the original Act. In most respects the Government is putting in with this bill a few clauses that may be quite reasonable—the ones that my colleague Judith Collins mentioned—but really the major aspect is the transference of $500 million of debt to the hard-working New Zealand taxpayer and that is just not good enough. 
I note that when this bill was originally brought to Parliament there was considerable consultation around the country. In fact the consultation went as far as this: the working group comprised not only officials from the Inland Revenue Department which I am sure it has gone to but also officials from the Department of Social Welfare the Department of Justice the Ministry of Women’s Affairs Manatu Maori Treasury and the State Services Commission. The working group widely consulted special interest groups including custodial parents women’s groups Birthright Families Need Fathers New Zealand Incorporated academics etc. 
Firstly I ask the Minister of Revenue how much consultation he or the Government undertook before introducing this bill. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: A lot. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Was it a lot? Well I very much hope that he will explain to Parliament that there has been considerable consultation because certainly it does not look like it. 
Secondly we ask the Minister how much this bill will cost hard-working New Zealand taxpayers because there is no mention of that over and above the $500 million. The new Minister of Revenue is giving away half a billion dollars right at the beginning of his term. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You were going to give away $4 billion. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: We hear the Labour Party saying that we were going to give away something. It is giving away $2 billion in interest-free student loans. We know the Labour Party’s largesse prior to this election and this is the icing on the gingerbread whereby Labour is transferring half a billion dollars in debt from liable parents on to hard-working taxpayers. It is an absolute disgrace and I hope that the majority of hard-working New Zealanders thoroughly realise exactly what the Labour Party is up to in this instance. 
I note the provisions for ensuring that liable parents who are overseas are made to pay their liabilities. I absolutely agree with those along with those small provisions that include the under-16-year-olds but I would like the Minister to let us know how many such under-16-year-olds there are. What is wrong with some of those under-16-year-olds working on a Saturday morning in order to pay their liabilities?