Cunliffe David: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Cunliffe David: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:506] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I acknowledge the member who has just resumed her seat and I thank the Minister for bringing this important bill to the House. It is certainly true as the previous speaker has said that there is no easy way to deal with families in crisis. One of the most difficult things about child support is that the Government is involved in matters of family affairs at exactly the time a family is most vulnerable; where the parents are not speaking to one another where the children’s relationship with one or other of the parents is often strained and where because of the economic lose-lose of a separation the resources that were once there to go around do not go around. In such circumstances it is hard to objectively ascribe fault. Lord knows in any relationship fault is shared. Or sometimes it is just strain or just circumstances that drive families to the brink. 
What we do know is that most often it is the fathers who leave the family home and enter a period of estrangement from the family and from the children. Sometimes it takes people a long time to get their lives back in order and sometimes people who have got themselves outside their necessary and legitimate child-support obligations to their children realise after a period that they need to do the right thing. Unfortunately the law as it stands does not support that kind of turn-round because the sad fact is that when people first get behind in their payments they incur a 10 percent penalty on their child support debt then 2 percent a month. 
I can relate to the House a story about a constituent of mine who with an initial debt of a couple of tens of thousands of dollars ended up owing a total debt and penalty mount that was closer to a quarter of a million dollars. The person was on I think less than the average wage. The Inland Revenue Department naturally sought to recover what was owed. The person lost their house and is still estranged from their family. The debt penalties have still to be repaid. Nobody won in that regard. So we have an unresolved problem. Yes the full force of the law must be used against parents of no conscience who deliberately refuse to support their children. This bill is a balanced package of sticks and carrots that includes some very tough measures to catch people like that. 
The previous speaker mentioned the very legitimate case of a parent with assets but perhaps disguised income who is not fully caught by the current rules. This bill makes it easier for the Inland Revenue Department to get a fair deal for the children in a case of that kind because it gives the commissioner the power to initiate an administrative review that takes into full account the assets—perhaps trust funds perhaps property—that that parent has. Who would argue? I do not think the previous speaker would argue with that. On the other hand if the person wants to go a step further and tries to leave the country with a massive child support debt owing this bill goes alongside administrative measures that will help the Inland Revenue Department toughen up in the area of border security and prevent so-called deadbeat dads from leaving their kids in the lurch as they leave New Zealand. It also goes alongside something like $17 million in extra resources for the department which will strengthen case management and investigations on parents who have got behind. 
What is balance in such a difficult personal and delicate circumstance? To me it is something actually that most parties in this House ought to agree on: it is about coming down hard on those who deliberately seek to deceive and starve their children of the support they deserve; it is about putting kids first in every circumstance; but it is also about acknowledging that sometimes people want to turn their lives round and get right with their kids and that the system as it currently stands prevents them from doing that by freezing them out under such a mountain of debt and penalties that it is absolutely financially and physically impossible for a dad who wants to get back to his children and be a parent again albeit an estranged one to pay his way back. How does someone pay off a quarter of a million dollars of penalties on 30 grand a year? It cannot be done—and there is no incentive to. The only incentive is to go bankrupt or leave New Zealand and that is how we got the penalty mountain. 
Under this bill if the parent is prepared in good conscience to enter into a binding arrangement to pay off the debt a part but not all of the penalties can be reduced pro rata as one does so. That gives the parent a way back in; it gives him or her an incentive to get back in. But it is not—I repeat not—a soft option. It is always best to pay on time and then there are no penalties and this bill does not remove them all. 
What we I think would all share—and I agree with the previous speaker—is that there is no greater obligation than being a good parent. All members of this House I am sure would want the select committee to work together to craft this legislation so that it achieves the goal of assisting that process in truly being a balanced package of sticks and carrots that lets repentant or intending supportive parents to discharge that obligation but holds a very hard line against those who do not wish to. 
This bill is only part of an ongoing reform in the child support area. It matches additional resources provided in the last Budget. It matches a crackdown on border security including expedited processes for catching deserting parents and better information-sharing between authorities. This bill is a necessary step forward. Is child support ever going to be perfect? I do not think so because I do not think this House or any other House has the capacity to write any kind of law that can take account of every individual family circumstance and we know that at times of family break-up the law is called to intervene and mediate in the most difficult sometimes desperate often tragic circumstances. The role of the law here is to support families that want to do the best for their children. It is to put the interests of the child first not the interests of the parent. It is to support those parents even estranged parents who want to get back on the right side of the law and do the right thing by their children and it is part of a very hard line on those who do not. 
I hope that the National Party through the select committee process will show good faith with this bill. The lives of our children are too important. I call upon members opposite to work constructively at the select committee to consider the evidence propose amendments and come back to this House with a supportive vote for passing this bill. I call on other parties. I call on the members of the Maori Party who see far too many broken families in the Maori community—the same way as there are in the Pakeha community—to give this bill their support for the sake of Maori children. I call on the Green Party to reiterate its support. I know that New Zealand First and United Future will be supporting the bill in its passage through the House. 
This bill—about our children and our families—is too important for politics. Let this House rise above politics just this once. Let us pass this bill let us do the right thing for our children and let us give some parents who genuinely want it a way back while at the same time holding a hard line against those who do not.