Bennett Paula: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Bennett Paula: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:517] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I speak on the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) 2005. I had sort of hoped that we would keep going with maiden speeches for the next 6 months but I suppose we need to get down to the business of the day. The intention of the bill is actually quite good. It is to improve compliance with financial support obligations so that more children receive the financial support to which they are entitled. Who can disagree with that? As we have all said it really is about the children. But where is the sense of responsibility? Where is the incentive for people to financially support their own children? 
This bill sends the message that liable parents do not necessarily have to financially support their own. It gives them an out where there should be none. People should look after their own. We live in today’s world and we can all accept that relationships do not always work. But where children are involved parents have a financial responsibility to support their own to the best of their ability. 
The Government is almost saying that people are not paying currently so we should soften the law and make it easier for them not to pay. The new section 135G which is proposed to be inserted by clause 32(1) of the bill provides that the commissioner may grant relief if all of the debt to which the penalties relate is paid but he or she must be satisfied that recovery would involve an inefficient use of resources or would place the liable person in serious hardship. Can parents who depend on the support from the liable parent who are working part-time or are on a benefit or the minimum wage and who are doing the best they can to keep the family together declare serious hardship and no longer be responsible for the debts they incur? No they cannot. 
It is said that more than half of all liable parents are in arrears. The Inland Revenue Department is struggling to get money out of those guys already and the Government want to push through this amendment bill which actually disincentivises those people even more. The bill gives the message that those people do not have to worry about paying the full amount or about paying on time. If they go into arrears or incur penalties then there are a couple of good ways they can get out of paying those penalties back. There is no incentive to pay the correct amount on time. 
This bill makes a mockery of those thousands of parents who are raising their children and struggling day to day to make ends meet. Those parents cannot afford to buy their kids new clothes with the swanky labels that we have been hearing about and they worry about how they will pay their bills. They try their best and go without what we would probably consider essentials in order to scrape together a bit of money for the school fees because they do not have that money. They still have a bit of pride but for them to go to the school and say they are suffering from serious hardship would erode the last wee bit of respect that they have. Those parents are taking responsibility for their own they have stalled their careers and they have a right to have that liability paid. They do not ask for something for themselves; they ask only that they be given the support that is due to them by the law. Can anyone disagree that parents should take responsibility for their own? No—but this bill will disincentivise those parents. 
I talk to those fathers as well. But what about those fathers who do pay on time who take responsibility and who want to do the best by their kids? They feel frustrated. They feel that it is other fathers who are not living up to their responsibilities who play relationship problems off through the kids or who still try to have some level of control by withdrawing financial support and it is those guys who give others the bad name. It is only the responsible fathers’ own sense of decency and sense of responsibility that sees them pay the full amount on time. But the Government says it wants to punish them and give more to those who are not paying. It just seems incredibly wrong. 
I oppose this law on behalf of mothers out there who rely on that financial assistance. I oppose it out of a sense of decency. We should be incentivising and not disincentivising those parents who need to be paying.