Borrows Chester: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:518] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in opposition to the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) in spite of the fact that I can see that it contains a number of clauses that are helpful and take account of some of the tensions that exist within society around this problem. I can remember a time when people who did not pay their maintenance were locked up—held in jail did time—and their bills still accumulated. Thank goodness those days are over. 
Some of the good parts of the bill revolve for instance round dealing with the responsibility for sexual abuse history and with negating the need for payments in respect of that history when they would re-victimise people. The bill also contains good points around dealing with young liable parents under the age of 16. But I can see the need for an incentive for people to make payments and not avoid responsibility. It is a shame that what we see from time to time right across our society is that when we provide an incentive that is too good to be true people go about exploiting it. The honourable member Anne Tolley mentioned earlier the loophole in the student loan scheme which was exploited in the past and will continue to be exploited. That will continue to happen when loopholes are provided. Given the opportunity people will exploit a loophole to avoid a penalty payment. 
I am only too aware of the tension around the fact that the people who suffer so often in these situations are children. But at the same time I believe there is a bigger picture as well. What happens to those liable parents who have worked hard to clear their debt and to provide for their children and who have taken responsibility for it? By allowing people to just negate their responsibility we are not teaching them the way they should go while they are young so that in their age they do not depart from it. 
It was interesting to hear the Hon David Cunliffe speaking earlier about the way in which the interest accumulates. To have a system under which the penalties amount to about $36000 in the first year and about $27000 in subsequent years is to my mind unjust but that does not mean there should be no penalty payment. Why cannot those penalties be reduced by the Inland Revenue Department to something that is attainable and achievable? That would then provide an incentive for those people to pay the penalty and also allow those who are making payments on time to reap the benefits of being productive and taking responsibility for their children. There needs to be an incentive for people to parent well and to look after their children. 
I believe that in offering a way out as this bill does the relationships between parents and their children are actually cheapened because the children then see themselves as simply being an encumbrance on their parents. If the mother complains because the money has not been paid by dad or if whenever the child spends time with dad he bitches and moans about how much money he has to pay to mum what does that say to the children about the relationship between their parents and them and about how they themselves are valued? 
It is my belief that maintaining a regime that allows people to walk away from their responsibilities does nothing to help in the long term. I have many friends on low incomes who have done their damnedest over the years to ensure that their children have money. The people who avoid those responsibilities have a big fear and that is that the money they pay will support someone else’s kids or the step-parents of their own children. We need to provide a system where there is an incentive. That incentive could easily be addressed by reducing the penalty rate to something more in keeping with the debt that is owed so we do not have the ridiculous system which the Minister himself related whereby a $20000 debt results in a half-million-dollar penalty. 
Debate interrupted.