Collins Judith: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Collins Judith: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3662] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 When I first spoke on this bill in its first reading I was hopeful there would be significant changes to it and that we could then get cross-party support for it. That is because this is a very very serious and important issue and I would like to thank the Minister for acknowledging the work of the Social Services Committee. One of the problems in our society at the moment is that we even need legislation for child support. We have to have it only because unfortunately there are some parents who simply will not acknowledge or do anything other than even acknowledge their rights and obligations in relation to their children. 
One of the reasons the National Party will not be supporting this bill is that it writes off about half a billion dollars in penalties. The message we are sending to people is that in relation to child support half a billion dollars in penalties—and about half of that amount I understand is owed by expatriate parents; in other words those who have flown the coop those who have run away from their responsibilities—will be written off when it comes to child support penalties. But do not expect any writing off of anybody else’s tax penalties because it is all going in these ones. 
It is time we acknowledge that for some people children do not come first. Their children are simply accessories for a time and when the relationship fails they then move on to another relationship. That happens; we all know it does. But no matter what children should come first. Even if relationships fail children must be put first. 
I see this unfortunately as legislation that writes off half a billion dollars of debt but also does not go quite far enough in our minds to enable us to support some of the good changes in the bill. I think it is very important that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue has the ability to go outside the formula for assessing liable-parent contributions to look at the liable-parent’s ability to pay the assets involved and the control that the liable parent has of those assets and what the situation is for the parent who has the day-to-day care of the child. I think that is a good provision. 
What concerned me greatly in the select committee was a very detailed submission I received from a woman in Christchurch. She outlined assets in great detail including certificates of title references property valuations details of addresses numerous properties—in fact pages of assets that her former partner owned and controlled including cars worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. There was an extremely lavish amount of assets. She then went on to point out that he was paying the bare minimum in child support. When we put the question to the Inland Revenue Department advisers—and from memory all of us thought this was a very worthwhile case—whether this was an instance where the commissioner would exercise his right to review the liable-parent contributions we did not get a positive answer. We got a “well it depends maybe possibly whatever” sort of answer. 
Frankly that is not good enough. When a parent is bringing up her child and getting only the barest support from the father of the child who is a man of extreme means in terms of property and income and the Inland Revenue Department can give us only a “maybe possibly oh maybe” answer that is not good enough. There must be an attitude within the Inland Revenue Department that puts these children first. 
There are those groups—and I am sure every member of the House will have been contacted by them—whose view is that liable parents should pay their contribution towards the cost of bringing up their children. Those groups say that liable parents should not have to pay their contribution to the Inland Revenue Department but that they should pay it to the children or buy things for the child. However that ignores the fact that for many sole parents who are left with a child to bring up their only means of support is from the State. 
The State is not just something that exists in Wellington; it is every single one of us taxpayers. Every single one of us is paying for those children. I am one of those people who do not begrudge that but I do expect that when there is a liable parent who can pay—who should pay—that they do pay. Those of us with children do pay for our children and we look after them. We do not view that as a dreadful burden and nor should liable parents; we view it as part of our obligations as parents. 
Frankly I am one of those people who are sick and tired of listening to people grizzle on about their rights in relation to their children when they are not prepared to accept their obligations as parents. I am also sick and tired of people who say they will not pay their liable parent contribution unless they get access to their children. I can understand their feeling of loss but I do know that access is actually the right of the child. It is very difficult for a lone sole parent to feel a huge amount of sympathy towards the other parent when they see him or her off with asset after asset living a high life re-partnered and going along their merry way then having to drop everything to that parent’s will when he or she wants to see his or her child. I accept that many genuine people would feel very hurt by those comments and I am not including them in that situation; but I like many other members of the House have seen people who do abuse the rights and obligations of being a parent and who are parents only when they need to be. 
I also know of some fathers on very good incomes who arrange with the mothers of their children that they the fathers will not be named on the birth certificate for the sole reason that they will not be contributing towards the costs of bringing up their children. I saw that as a lawyer before I came into this House. It is an absolute disgrace for people in that situation to believe it is their right to do so. 
One of my concerns is that writing off this half a billion dollars of penalties will reinforce the view that if we wait long enough for people to pay off their debt—if we wait for enough people not to be meeting their obligations to their children—then eventually it will all get written off. We will put some things in the bill that will be helpful but at the end of the day they may or may not do a scrap of good. It concerns me greatly that unless the Inland Revenue Department makes it a priority to actually get the money in to actually get people contributing towards the cost and upbringing of their children—and not only that but putting the effort into being with their children when they can—then I do not think we will have any change in behaviour. In fact I think all we will get is a further eroding of parental obligations and responsibilities as well as the rights.