Tremain Chris: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13732] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I want to take the debate in a slightly different direction in this 5-minute speech. I want to focus on the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the two amendments to that Act that will have quite a significant impact on child support payments in this country. 
The first is section 280K which is inserted in the principal Act by clause 263. It deals with the disclosure of arrival and departure information for the purposes of the Child Support Act 1991. Subsection (1) states: “The purpose of this section is to facilitate the exchange of information …”. Section 280L provides for the Inland Revenue Department to have direct access to arrival and departure information to help it apply the Child Support Act 1991. In that regard a range of information is to be provided and I think that is a good thing. Subsection (4) of section 280K refers to the person’s name the person’s date of birth the person’s tax file number—all information that I think will be hugely relevant in starting to dealing with what can only be described as the mountain of unpaid child support. 
I want to bring to the Committee’s attention some of the figures which are frightening. I find it unbelievable that parents can have children then walk away from their obligation to bring up those children. I find it simply quite unfathomable. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Unconscionable. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: “Unconscionable” is the word that the Minister uses. For the life of me I cannot understand how someone can bring a small baby into this world see that baby grow then walk away from one’s responsibility to bring up that child. I accept that people move out of relationships. I understand that. It happens around the world and that is not going to change. But for a parent to actually walk away from his or her obligation both financially and on a relationship level to bring up that child I find totally unconscionable. 
Here are some of the figures. Child support debt now has risen to $1.129 billion. That is up from $380 million in 2000. We have seen this exponential increase in parents of either sex—but I have to say mainly men—walking away from those relationships walking away from their responsibilities to bring up their children. Quite frankly I find that unconscionable as the Minister said. 
The second point I will make here is that the amount of assessment debt has gone from $192 million to $450 million. As at 31 March 23959 liable parents owed more than $10000 each in child support. Over 23000 people in this country have walked away from their obligation to bring up their children their obligation to financially support their children. To allow the State to take over that role is just unbelievable. 
Of those parents 11793 now live in Australia and they owe a collective $354 million. Although this side of the Chamber does not support the vision of this bill particularly the taxation provisions in terms of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 I believe that there is an onus on this Parliament to come down on those parents to make it difficult for them to walk away from their obligations. We should not accept by any stretch of the imagination their walking away from their obligations. We should come down hard on those parents who are living in Australia. The provisions of section 280K “Disclosure of arrival and departure information for purposes of Child Support Act 1991” and the provision allowing that information to go to the Inland Revenue Department will help us to clamp down on those parents and get them to take on their obligations. I do not know why the Government should have to do that. It is something that parents should do as of right. 
Lastly and in that regard although both men and women are involved in this issue 288 fathers earning over $100000 have total child support debts of $5.5 million. What are those men doing? What do they think? Do they think they can just walk away from their obligation to raise their child? It is totally unacceptable. National supports sections 280K and 280L. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to the proposed amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Papers 167 and 168 in his name be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (ii) inserted by paragraph (b) of clause 201(6) the word “share” and substitute the word “scheme”; 
to omit from paragraph (a) of clause 298(3) the words “paragraph (c)” and substitute the words “paragraph (d); 
to renumber paragraph (c) inserted by paragraph (a) of clause 298(3) as paragraph (d); 
to omit from paragraph (db) inserted by subclause (2) of clause 402 the words “section LH 2(4)” and to substitute the words “section LH 2(6)”; 
to omit from the heading to section OB 7C inserted by clause 464 the word “business”; 
to omit from subsection (2) of section OB 7C inserted by clause 464 the word “business” and substitute the words “research and development”; 
to omit from row 5C inserted in table O1 by clause 466 the word “business” and substitute the words “research and development”; 
to omit from the heading to section OK 4B inserted by clause 480 the word “business”; 
to omit from subsection (2) of section OK 4B inserted by clause 480 the word “business” and substitute the words “research and development”; 
to omit from row 4B inserted in table O17 by clause 481 the word “business” and substitute the words “research and development”; 
to omit from paragraph (bb) inserted by clause 482 the word “business” and substitute the words “research and development”; 
to omit from the heading to section OP 11B inserted by clause 484 the word “business”; 
to omit from subsection (2) of section OP 11B inserted by clause 484 the word “business” and substitute the words “research and development”; 
to omit from row 6B inserted in table O19 by clause 485 the word “business” and substitute the words “research and development”; 
to omit subsection (3B) other than the heading inserted by clause 519B and to substitute the following new subsection: 
(3B) Despite subsection (3) this section does not apply for the purposes of section LH 1(2) (Who this subpart applies to); and 
to omit paragraph (ob) inserted by subclause (1) of clause 521 and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(ob) subpart LH (Tax credits for expenditure on research and development):.