Collins Judith: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5137] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Not everything in this part of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) is bad. There are some good points about it and I will let the people who support the bill promote those because after all they are supposed to do something for the salaries they receive—unlike Taito Phillip Field who is not expected to do anything which is a bit of a shame really. But one of the things about this bill that the National Party simply cannot support is the attitude that liable parents who have an obligation to pay something—not everything but something and even in some cases as little as $11 a week—towards the upkeep of their children should have penalties just thrown away and dismissed on the basis that that will somehow encourage them to meet their obligations towards their children. It simply does not work. In 2003 the Government’s own figures told us that from those New Zealand liable parents living in Australia $73 million was owed to New Zealand either to the Government on behalf of the taxpayer or to the custodial parent. What has happened under this Labour Government? That figure has ballooned to $281 million. That is over a quarter of a billion dollars. 
The Labour Government likes to say that a lot of that is penalties. Actually a lot of it—more of it—happens to be actual debt. It is the actual amount owed. I am so proud that in my party the National Party we can stand up for those custodial parents who look after their children who pay their way who have to be both mum and dad and who have to go and tell their children why they cannot have school trips because they cannot afford it while the other parent—who has skipped off to Australia—has decided that he or she does not have to have any obligations. Those people are all about the culture of entitlement that so pervades this Labour Government and everything it touches. 
I will be interested to see how New Zealand First will vote today. As a member of the new “Poodle Party” for the Government Mr Woolerton is not sure. How is he going to vote today? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I don’t know— 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Woolerton says he does not know. He will find out from Helen Clark how he will vote today. Well I suggest that that party should be renamed the “New Zealand Second Party”. That is because it is second to the baubles of office that encourage that party to keep propping up this corrupt Labour Government which is trying to send to those liable parents who are not paying their way the message— 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I draw your attention to the comment of the speaker who used a word that is unparliamentary. I seek that it be withdrawn. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes it certainly is. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I withdraw and apologise. I will not say that word again. I will say however that this Government sends the message that people can just take somebody’s money use taxpayers’ money not pay it back and then it goes and changes the law so that it can get out of it. That is exactly what this bill is all about. This bill is all about using taxpayers’ money and then not paying it back. In fact people get rewarded for it under this Government. They get told they do not have to pay it back because after all why should those absentee mums and dads pay back the money? Why should they? 
 This Labour Government is supported by that other party that should be called “New Zealand Second”. What is the message that they are sending? It is that if Helen Clark does not have to pay back what she owes why should they? That is actually a reasonably cogent argument. These men and women who do not want to be mums and dads any more moan about how they never see their children except in photos—because they never pay anything towards their children. I can understand why they might get the message that people do not have to meet their obligations. This Government has a culture that is all about entitlement. Nothing in that culture is about responsibility—that is the attitude this Government is forcing into New Zealand. Many people here in this Parliament are parents some are not and would love to be and some say honestly that they did not want to be. I am one of the people who wanted to be a parent. I say to this Chamber that when we send out a message that fathers and mothers do not have to have responsibility for their children—that they can flit off to Australia and owe the New Zealand taxpayer and custodial parents so much money—that message is wrong.