Hutchison Paul: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5158] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak on this Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). This is the final debate in the Committee stage as my colleague mentioned. The officials sent us a summary of what this bill is about which stated that it amends the Child Support Act 1991 and that one of the principal changes is to write off penalty debt. We are aware that the fundamental reason for the Child Support Act 1991 was to ensure parental responsibility for the support of their children. 
Here we have a Labour Government writing off at least half a billion dollars. There is a certain irony about this. Here on the one hand it is writing off half a billion dollars that should have gone to children and on the other hand it is refusing to pay $500000 that it should have paid for a pledge card. It is absolutely outrageous. Minister Cunliffe said that this was a very hard problem and that his Government was honestly trying to do something about it. “Yeah right!” said one of my colleagues. 
Mr Cunliffe went on to say that the solution is not perfect. As I pointed out in the debate on Part 2 I keep hearing from submitters and liable parents all over New Zealand that the governance and mechanisms of collecting support in New Zealand are an absolute shambles. I described how one individual was told one day that he owed $270000 then 24 hours later was told it was $3000 then 24 hours after that was told that the case manager looking after him had gone on holiday and that he would have someone else allotted to him but at a different call centre at the other end of the country. I keep hearing this sort of thing all the time. Surely the Labour Government should put its own house in order before it writes off half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money. 
 It was very relevant to me that the technical practitioners who were involved with this bill had grave reservations about it. That included the New Zealand Law Society Principal Family Court Judge Boshier and Judge A P Walsh. I will go over again what Judge Walsh had to say with regard to the question of the departure from formula assessment child support initiated by the commissioner: “After reflecting on the whole scheme of Part 6B I am left with the impression it will be effectively a toothless provision.” That is what he thought about it. 
This is a bill that the Labour chairperson of the Social Services Committee Georgina Beyer said we ought to rush through and the Government cannot even get the fundamentals right. A technician like Judge Walsh said that he was left with the impression that the bill would be effectively a toothless provision. He said in that context: “I note that the creation of family trusts and the incorporation of companies are now routine procedures for minimising income tax liability” etc. He stated: “While there may well be numerous legitimate procedures adopted by a liable parent to achieve those ends the strategies and devices employed end up benefiting a liable parent when it comes to payment of child support.” 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I just check whether the Minister’s microphone is live because during the speech from my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison which I did not want to interrupt the Minister was making comments from time to time. They were quite loud and I am sure they were contrary to the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I can assure the member that my finger was on the button and that the microphone was not live. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I want to finish off this point because I think it is very important when professional technicians comment adversely on a very very important child support bill that is being rushed through in this untimely manner. Judge Walsh went on to state: “If the proposed provisions remain I can see the whole process being undermined by the court and being effectively hamstrung through a lack of information that is otherwise available to the commissioner.” That is what he said. 
Practitioners from the family law section of the New Zealand Law Society said they saw some positive things about the bill. I will not hide from what they said. They said the bill “has a number of positive features including the exemptions in Subpart 2 for hospital patients and prisoners … Other sensible provisions are … the arrangement for offsetting where there is shared custody and the inclusion of priority payment for the qualifying custodian when he or she is not in receipt of a benefit.” But they go on to criticise the bill. They criticise it in my view in a very serious way. They say for instance: “It appears that the new process whereby the Commissioner is able to initiate a review will not be any better since the qualifying custodian will not be entitled to information about the liable parent unless the Commissioner received that information after the review was commenced.” They further submit a whole raft of concerns that have not been addressed by this Labour Government. 
Finally I will just make a comment on what the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand had to say about this bill which is being rushed through by this Labour Government. It is a bill that affects children and the Government says the primary purpose of the bill is to ensure parental responsibility for the support of their children. What does the institute say? Its submission states: “In any event we have serious misgivings with the proposal as currently drafted in the Bill both with the law and the practical and administrative implications. It is too wide provides no objective test does not clearly specify the purpose and provides inadequate controls and safeguards.” 
 This bill as I have said is very important. It is a bill National would have liked to support if it could but it has been rushed through thoughtlessly by a Labour Government that put it up as a bit of an election bribe. The bill has wound up as custard in the faces of Labour members as on the one hand they merrily go about waiving $500 million of taxpayers’ money and on the other hand refuse to pay $500000 that they should be paying back for a pledge card.