Collins Judith: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:505] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Following on from the Minister’s speech I can say that there is no greater obligation for any parent than the obligation to protect and look after his or her child. One of the points that the Minister has very correctly made is that unfortunately some people—mostly men but some women—do not support their children financially. That is of course a form of child abuse. The same people contact members of Parliament like me and other members of this House and talk consistently about their rights of access etc. to their children but do not ever talk about their own responsibility to be financially obliged towards their children. 
Some people think this matter is not very important because they think that every parent who should be a liable parent is paying money to the Inland Revenue Department which comes into the Government coffers. But of course that is not right. Certainly many of those people are doing that—and I think this is a good opportunity to congratulate and thank the people who do meet their liable-parent contribution. Frankly I think that those people are really good people and that we should thank them for doing that. 
Unfortunately as the Minister has said there is over a billion dollars in arrears and penalties altogether and this proposal has a certain amount of writing off of those arrears. I have some concerns about that. Those concerns are—and perhaps I can enunciate them quietly—that if anyone else owes money to the Inland Revenue Department those people do not normally have their arrears written off. For instance in the case of a mother who is not on the domestic purposes benefit but who is working to look after her child and is hopefully receiving some money from the liable parent nobody pays her arrears if she goes to pay for groceries at the supermarket and finds that there is no money in the account because the child’s father has not put the liable-parent contribution in or that the liable parent has not paid the Inland Revenue Department which has then not paid the mother. There is nothing to help that woman who is shamed humiliated and unable to do anything much about it. 
It is no wonder that sometimes mums and dads who are normally good and responsible mums and dads say things to their children that they should not say about the other parent. Sometimes they do point out that a parent who for instance has a significant farm a significant property or other things held in trust is paying only the minimum rate of liable-parent contribution of around $11 a week. Sometimes mothers and fathers do get angry and say things that they should not say because at the end of the day they are only human. They are the ones who have to tell the children that they cannot go to the school ball have the things they want go on holiday while everyone is on holiday or be part of the holiday programme at school because there is no money. The parent does not want to say: “No because Dad is not paying up.” or “Mum is not paying up.” 
I have just about zip sympathy for parents who do not meet their obligations to their children because I come from a family where that happened. I have also seen it happen in my generation when one of my sisters was left in that situation. While she was working on the minimum wage her former husband paid only the minimum amount even though he had a farm—he still has farms—and properties. To me that is a disgusting state of affairs. Unfortunately this bill will not necessarily deal very well with that situation. 
I accept that the Minister of Revenue has taken over this bill from the former Minister and I am sure that the current Minister would like to toughen it up. I hope that he will talk to the National Party members on the Social Services Committee about how that can be done because I am sure we would be very happy to assist him. 
A couple of things in this bill are good and I think we should acknowledge them. One is the review that can be initiated by the Inland Revenue Department. I tell the House that where for instance a custodial mother or father is working in a full-time job as many are and is running around trying to look after one two or three kids and carting them to music lessons school events and everything else by themselves—many of us in this House have had that experience; fortunately touch wood I have not been in that situation but one never knows because these things do happen to people—they do not have the time or the money to institute reviews. They do not have the time to deal with the Inland Revenue Department. They do not have the time to deal with those things and they need someone else to do it. I ask the Minister to please make sure that in his time as Minister of Revenue he makes this matter a priority for the Inland Revenue Department because the people in this situation are often those who work for minimum wages and who often do not have any spare time or cash. We must help those people. 
Another good thing in this bill is the exemption for victims of sex abuse having to pay the liable-parent contribution. I was trying to work out just how this could happen but I guess it could. A victim of rape could end up as a mother and perhaps have a family member or someone else look after the child or even—hopefully not but I suppose it could happen occasionally—the perpetrator of the rape themselves although why one would want to put a child under the care of a rapist is beyond me. For instance the mother could end up experiencing further abuse. 
At the moment unfortunately the bill is not in a state where we think we can support it going to a select committee. We know of course that the Government will have the numbers to do it otherwise it would not be putting it before the House as one of its first bills. So we will be very happy to work to try to toughen up the bill and make it better. 
We would really like to look at the whole area of child support which has in many ways become very much a cross-party issue. I do not think too many of us would want to make too much political capital out of the fact that some people do not pay for their own children but we do want to see the Government take some steps so that people are not rewarded or in fact let off for not paying their obligations towards their children. I know of many people—as I am sure do other members of the House—who do as liable parents contribute in a huge way towards their children not only in terms of the liable-parent contribution but also in terms of time of not fighting with their former spouse or other parent and of spending time and money on their children. Children eat money particularly teenage children. They eat it like it is going out of fashion—and I see members of the House who are parents are agreeing with me. 
Unfortunately this bill is a bit too soft for us to support. We really want to toughen up this area because as the Minister has correctly said too many liable parents are arranging their affairs to avoid paying anything more than the basic amount towards their children’s upkeep. 
Too many parents receiving the domestic purposes benefit are not claiming for the liable-parent contribution. In doing that they are letting an awful lot of fathers—and mothers in some cases—get away without contributing to what taxpayers are paying. That is important because rich people are not the only taxpayers; taxpayers are also people who earn $10 $11 or $12 an hour. It is therefore absolutely one of the obligations of members of Parliament to make sure that every single cent of that money is well-spent and that the people who must contribute do contribute. We will be voting against the bill at this stage.