Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be talking on this Child Support Amendment Bill. The first thing I'd like to say is that we support this bill because it is a fundamental issue that we make sure that where we have broken homes children are at the centre of how they are cared for and the arrangements that surround them as they grow into adulthood. This bill is part of a continuum of pieces of legislation over a series of Governments with a view to putting in place better and more robust arrangements for payment so that children do actually get the entitlement through their caring parents and so we end up with a more equitable outcome.Of course child support debt is a huge issue. There's currently about $2.2 billion outstanding and a lot of that has arisen—if you break down the numbers roughly there's about $500 million of core debt where one parent has not paid the caregiver appropriate support payment and of course that means the children don't get access to that money. But the remainder of that roughly $1.6 billion is actually made up of penalties. And as the Minister's just explained under the current arrangements there's some issues around when the penalties start and it's a very short period of time after seven days that immediately an 8 percent penalty is incurred. I think that is leading to unnecessary penalties of course as they mount up and accumulate and are compounded in terms of the interest costs. That's why they've got such a high outstanding penalty amount in that overall figure.So what this bill is trying to do is recognise that it sometimes takes time for parents to work out what the arrangements are that they'll put in place with respect to their children immediately following a breakup particularly and how that process works through and in many cases it takes time. So I think the move to the 28-day test is a practical measure in terms of giving the parties sufficient time to actually work out what those arrangements are and also for the person who's making the payments to make sure that those payment arrangements—whether it's done through their work or whatever—can be put in place. So I think that is a very crucial part of this piece of legislation. Of course we support it and of course it's underpinned now because the BTP programme which is the Business Transformation programme that has been rolled out by the IRD—it was actually an initiative started under National and it was obviously pursued and continued as it should have been and has been by the current Government. We're now nearing the end of that roll-out—it's a major major programme—and this is going to be one of the last modules that get put on to the system so that means that these payments can be better tracked and better managed. And I think that simplifying the rules and moving to a situation where we've got an IT platform administered by the IRD to be able to do that is a very very good initiative.The thing I would just like to pick up on is there were a couple of concerns that we had and the first one—and it was one I was particularly keen on—is around the definition of income". So there was quite a discussion in the Social Services and Community Committee about what constitutes income. Previously it was a very narrow definition of income which was basically what you earned under the PAYE system. Where this bill will take it is in terms of widening the definition of income. And I think in the first instance it's quite right. It includes interest income and includes dividends. Where we had a differing perspective and it's something we took up with the officials is how parents if they choose to be obstructive or not reveal all their income—how they actually deal with that can take various forms.So one of the things is in many instances what people do with companies is they start paying themselves through shareholder advances. And they can use that mechanism as a way to pay themselves income which will not traditionally be captured under the definition of income. I'm not suggesting for a moment that it's an illegal practice—it's a very standard form of payment that shareholders use whether in their company or a personal situation but I think this bill hasn't reflected some of that sophistication. But I do welcome the move towards incorporating interest and dividends because that's pretty clear cut. In terms of the shareholder advances I think that's something that officials in time might turn their mind to because I think people always evolve and as you put in a new piece of legislation people then react to it and we end up just going down a rabbit hole. So we could have been a bit more comprehensive on that issue.The other thing I'd like to just note is that losses from prior periods is another way where people have incurred a loss in a previous year. Under the current arrangements those losses could be taken into account. And what we want to try and do is make sure that parents pay a fair share based on their current income in the traditional sense that you understand current income. So there's a change around that that I think's a very good thing.But I think the other aspect of this bill which we've noted—and we noted as a minority view into the report back to the House—is the continual use of businesses to act as the collecting agent for the IRD. We think that trend which is relentless is something that we need to question and we did question during the process. We've noted it as an issue that we need to be aware of because there seems to be a view in Government and Government departments that businesses are there to collect money on their behalf. I think we need to be careful about that because nothing comes without a cost. And in this case it's the cost of the HR departments or the one partner of a business owner doing payroll late at night or whatever it might be to actually now have regard for collecting money in the instances where payments are collected and paid to the supporting parent. I think this relentless move towards just assuming that businesses can do that—and I think underlying there is this premise that all businesses have dedicated people and this is all fine and dandy. Actually most of our smaller businesses—and we have about 320000 operating small businesses—are very small. They are only one or two people - type businesses. And this is a cost and it is a cost in terms of time but also in terms of resources. I think this is an issue and I just want to raise it and I'm looking across to officials—they know our view on this—that this is something we will continue to have regard for particularly from our perspective from National because there is a view as I said before that this is leading to a trend that we need to actually arrest over time.But I think most of the other issues in this bill are very good; we fully endorse them. It's about fairness and equity and making sure that we achieve the right outcomes for children particularly when they're living in a vulnerable situation where one of the parents has left the home and they're having to cope with new relationships and it's a very difficult time for young children. We want to make sure that they get the best start in New Zealand because if we don't obviously it leads to greater problems over time. Thank you very much."