Blue Jackie: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5145] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) and I will deal with Part 1 and clause 32 in particular. I would like to acknowledge my colleagues many of whom sat on the Social Services Committee. I was not fortunate enough myself to sit on the committee. When we hear the submissions and hear the public speak I appreciate the emotion and the honesty that come through. I applaud the comments of my colleagues today who have experienced that together with their knowledge of the committee. 
However I have had a look at this bill and I have to agree with my colleagues. I think this bill is wrong. It is sloppy. It is flawed. I know that it does deal with situations where the commissioner may grant relief in respect of penalties that are payable by a liable person. Certainly our view is that we do not support the premise that this clause will help by writing off about half a billion dollars of debt. We have to remember that half of that debt is from expatriate parents—people who do not reside in New Zealand. They reside outside New Zealand. They are not paying taxes. They have made the decision for whatever reason to isolate themselves geographically from their children and by virtue of doing that have removed themselves from all responsibility for being a parent. I do not believe that this bill at the stroke of a pen will suddenly change these parents into responsible parents who will want to sign up to any type of contract and pay back the money owed. I believe that by their actions which are loud and clear they do not want to take responsibility for being a parent. I do believe it is simplistic to think that this bill will suddenly change that when there is a clear action by these parents half of whom have gone overseas. 
I acknowledge the sentiment behind the bill. I think it is very laudable and it is hopeful that it will increase the compliance of parents who are not currently meeting their child support obligations. But again I think that is being simplistic. Apart from being simplistic I think it sends the wrong signal and the legislation is also a little dishonest. I have already alluded to the legislation being flawed and simplistic. I do not believe that the bill will turn irresponsible parents into responsible parents. It is a sad fact of life that some parents unfortunately look upon their children as an appendage rather than as children who need to be nurtured and cared for. This clause will not make them into responsible parents. The problem goes much deeper than that and legislation will not right that particular wrong. 
The bill sends the wrong signal. It sends a signal to the parents who have paid their money on time and in full and without getting behind: why bother? What is the point when people can delay their payments and then do a deal with the Government and get some money off and it is sweet? That is wrong. It discourages responsible parents and rewards irresponsible parents. It sends the completely wrong message and that is why I think the legislation is wrong and flawed. It says to the irresponsible parents that nanny State will look after their children and that is wrong. This legislation will not change parents’ personalities or their obligations at the stroke of a pen. It is simplistic to think it will. 
I believe that this clause is not fair. I have a thing about fairness and being fair. This clause is not fair to other groups. I apologise if I deviate from the legislation but we have to look at the situation of a family that perhaps has got behind in its mortgage payments and is about to lose the family home. 
Judith Collins 
: And paying taxes. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Yes and they are paying taxes. Will this Government race to that family’s aid? I do not think so. I know of a private health contractor in Auckland that has got into difficulties with paying its tax penalty payments. It does a great job by the way. It is one of those deserving little groups that just keep on going battling away. Do members think the Government will race to its aid? No I do not think so. This is all about fairness and this is not fair legislation. 
I will come to my last point. I think it is quite dishonest that this clause is attempting to disguise the fact that a debt is owed and to wipe it away as if it never existed. Yet again the hard-working taxpayer has to carry the can. At the stroke of a pen half a billion dollars will vanish that could be collected put back into the coffers and back into the sector to help irresponsible parents to become good parents. The bill is not helpful. It is not dissimilar to the student loan scheme in the message it sends. Students borrow the maximum amount of money and there is no incentive to pay it back any earlier than they have to.