Hutchison Paul: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5152] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). This is the part that deals with amendments to the Tax Administration Act 1994 and also where information regarding sex offences for purposes of child support exemptions is dealt with. 
I must say that I too was deeply disappointed that the Labour Government chose to cut off the important debate on Part 1 because it does relate very much to Part 2. I see the Government member Sue Moroney is shaking her head and saying that this was not important. Can I tell her that Part 1 was the substance of this bill and it is very interesting that the Labour Government has chosen to cut off the debate abruptly so that it is not embarrassed by it any further. The Government should be embarrassed by it. 
As I said Part 2 is confined to amendments to the Tax Administration Act and the area of providing information concerning sex offences. I think it is really important that the Minister said the Government has a very hard problem with this bill and that it honestly wants to do something about it. 
Judith Collins 
: Yeah right! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Yeah right! But he also said that the solution is not perfect. 
As I went around New Zealand and heard some of the submissions I heard that right now the collection agencies get it wrong time and time again. In fact one liable parent told me that firstly he had an estimation that his liability was $270000. He rang back 24 hours later and was told the figure was $3000. He did not know where it was. He was absolutely deeply upset by this. He rang back again and was told that the person he had spoken to had gone on holiday that he could not speak to that person and that someone else would talk to him. That person would not be at the call centre down in Dunedin where he had rang last time but would be up in Whangarei. This is the sort of mismanagement that typifies this Labour Government right throughout its rotten core. 
The problem that so many liable parents find is deep frustration with the inability of the Labour Government to be able to properly govern and to organise good effective and sensitive management of liable parents. Some of them become so upset by the system that basically they are unable to cope. They get into a revolving situation where they increase their debt and things get worse and worse. 
When we see clause 51 and clause 52 “Officers to maintain secrecy”— 
Judith Collins 
: Do we believe it? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That is absolutely right—do we believe it? 
Judith Collins 
: Look at the threats of the Minister. The Minister has been making threats about it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well the Minister has been making threats and that is of great worry. When we see this question of the officers having to maintain secrecy of course they should maintain secrecy. But with the frustrations liable parents find when they have to go from one end of the country to the other and go from one call centre to another and not one individual is responsible to go round and ensure that an appropriate deal is worked out for that individual it is no wonder that this Labour Government is actually wiping off $500 million of debt. 
The other area in Part 2 is new section 85K “New Zealand Police and Ministry of Justice to provide information concerning sex offences for purposes of child support exemptions” and new section 85L which are to be inserted in the Tax Administration Act by clause 53 of the bill. Like many other members I think this is a sensible part of the bill. It was interesting to hear submissions about some situations most of us had not thought about—for instance that of a young male child who is abused. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise the member when he has finished his speech to look at Speaker’s ruling 74/1(1). 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I look forward to looking at Speaker’s ruling 74/1(1). I will finish my speech by saying that I vividly remember a situation at Wesley College in my electorate where a young male was abused by one of the teachers. Under the old system if that teacher had become pregnant perhaps the young male could have been made liable for the support of the baby. It is quite right that this exemption is there. Obviously when a young female has been abused and does not keep the baby it is exactly the same situation. National agrees that this small part of the bill is sensible and appropriate. There are other exemptions extended to people in hospital people in jail and people attending school. We think that these exemptions are right and proper. 
But as I said before I am deeply concerned that there was a cut-off of the debate on Part 1 which is inextricably related to Part 2 by this Labour Government. It is almost certainly because the Government is embarrassed by the fact not only that the bill is sending the wrong signals to responsible New Zealanders by waiving $500 million but also that major technicians—the Law Society the Chief Judge and the New Zealand Society of Accountants—have made submissions on this legislation and all have grave concerns about it. 
We had the chairperson of the Social Services Committee saying that the bill should be rushed through. This is a bill that should not have been rushed through. As the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe has said it still has many imperfections in it—and the Labour Government is cutting off the debate at a time when it is very very important. This is typical of a Labour Government that just cannot really organise anything let alone a very important bill that deals with children.