Tolley Anne: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5157] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 We are looking now at the final debate in Committee on this bill. I have to say that I was absolutely appalled to hear the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe say during earlier parts of the debate that the bill is not perfect. That is an appalling confession for a Minister to make. He has been in Government for 7 years and this child support bill affects thousands of New Zealand families. For a Minister to stand in this Chamber and say that the Government accepts that it is not perfect but hey it is better than nothing is not good enough. 
When I look at the history of the legislation I see that it really has not had a good review since 1994. I know that the Labour Government fiddled with some of the child support income levels in 2002 but when the weight of submissions to the Social Services Committee were arguing about some of the fundamental basics of this bill and when the Government has done nothing to address those concerns for 7 years for the Government to bring a bill to the House that the Minister confesses is not perfect is appalling. But perhaps we should not be surprised. In fact I got the impression at one stage that he was imploring the Opposition to put up some sensible amendments to try to make the bill perfect. Of course that is not our job and this Government has had 7 long years to do something. 
I want to come to a couple of the points that were made in the select committee that relate specifically to the title of the bill. The first one is about the definition of “parent”. We heard a lot in the select committee about parents. We think of them as being mothers and fathers. Mr Kilkolly brought a petition to Parliament then came and spoke to the select committee. He talked about the concept of shared parenthood which seemed to be a novel thing for anyone looking at the bill to consider. He mentioned Australia which is not too far away which considers the income of both parents. I think he made some very good points about the definition of what a parent is or should be. 
 The other point which was made by many submitters that relates to parents and their liability to look after their children is the ability to prove whether one should be liable. Many of the men said they would like to be able to take a paternity test because they disputed that the children were theirs. Under the current legislation the child’s mother can block the taking of a paternity test. Here we have people who are being held liable and accountable by the State who are not able to prove or disprove that liability. 
Finally there are the exemptions for some parents which I mentioned earlier—for those who are youngsters and at school which allows them to finish their schooling and for victims of sexual assault. There is a great deal left undone around the definition of “parent” and parenting when we talk about child support that this bill could have addressed and does not. 
The main purpose of this bill is to allow for the write-off of half a billion dollars of debt owed by liable parents of New Zealand children. That is an extraordinary amount of money to wipe off the slate. The premise for doing that we are told is to encourage people to start paying their child support. I have discussed that philosophy at length in this Chamber. It completely escapes me how the Government can say to people that if they do not pay their child support and amass debt then the Government will write it off.