Bennett Paula: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Bennett Paula: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5141] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) and the purpose of it. There are elements of this bill that one would easily agree with and I look forward to the opportunity to speak on them a bit further on particularly when we talk about the level of sexual violence and the fact that the bill lets victims off having to pay child support. 
The Social Services Committee also heard some good submissions on under-16-year-olds being let off child support payments until they are over 16 and are actually earning an income. That allows those young people the opportunity to get on with hopefully some schooling without having to think about gaining an income. Those arguments had a lot of logic and we are pleased to see this provision coming through as those arguments make a lot of sense. 
I note that there are members from the select committee here who have heard those submissions but that most of them are from this side only of the Chamber. Of course I expect that the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe would have read every submission in detail. What grabbed me and everyone else on the select committee no matter what parties members came from was that this is an extremely emotive issue. What happened with a lot of the submissions was that people went off the subject of this bill but without a doubt what they had to say related to children to emotions and to finances. When we put those three things together what we got was a lot of people who were very hurt and confused and it was very personal for them. From going through the submission process I know that there was a lot of discussion at the select committee about stuff that is perhaps outside this bill but is of course very relevant to child support issues. 
Given that some of the members of the select committee who heard those submissions have not taken the time to come to the Chamber now I thought I might go through some of the matters that do not come out in this bill but meant a lot to people. A lot of stuff that came out was about parents who care for their children for 40 percent of nights having to pay child support at the full rate as though they do not care for their children. At that level they still have to pay full child support. As soon as they go one night over 40 percent their level of child support starts changing. What really struck me throughout this whole process—and I am sure the advisers will agree with me because they identified this issue as well—was that it does not induce people to talk to people. 
One thing that really came out is that the power is put in the hands of one parent while the other is marginalised. One has to question how that can possibly be what is best for the children because at the end of the day that is what it is about. That is what really struck me throughout the whole process of talking to advisers and to submitters and of doing a lot of reading on the issue myself. I have to tell members that I did not grasp it easily. It is a very in-depth and explicit piece of legislation that has a combination of all the emotional stuff and the technical issues involved. In all honesty that was not my strength and it took me quite a bit of sitting down and working through those formulas. I still would not have the courage to stand here now and try to speak on those matters in technical detail. 
What really struck me the whole way through was the way in which the bill seems to set people up against each other. There can be little doubt that what we stand for is—and I do not want to agree with the Minister but there is a level to which we do agree—that parents have to pay for their children. There has to be that level of responsibility. Where I think we will differ is on whether we think this bill takes that far enough whether it actually accomplishes what we want to do and the philosophy around writing off penalties. I agree that it is not about writing off the debt. 
I took a lot of time to try to understand this bill because I saw it as being so important to so many people and as deserving the due courtesy of having that kind of detailed consideration. What worries me is not so much the purpose in that I get that the Government is trying to get some of that money back and that the way to do it is to reward people for paying that money; it is just the philosophy of it. At the end of the day people have got themselves into that situation there is a level of self-responsibility and someone else should not have to pay.