GEORGINA BEYER (Labour): I am pleased to rise and take a call on the second reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). As chair of the Social Services Committee, which considered the bill, I would like to thank Judith Collins, who has just resumed her seat, in her role as deputy chair and also the other committee members. I also thank our committee staff and the advisers who helped us with this bill. The bill was expedited fairly quickly through the committee in terms of parliamentary process. The committee received the bill in December last year and closed submissions in February of this year. We heard 35 submissions, and we spent several hours deliberating and considering the bill before reporting it back to the House today for its second reading.

The main purpose of the bill is to increase the compliance of parents who fail to meet their child support responsibilities. That goal should be balanced against the need not to wring out of parents support liabilities they cannot afford to pay. The bill’s purpose is being achieved through a number of measures. The bill provides limited relief to parents who have fallen behind in their payments and have attracted penalty payments as a result. That is significant given that, as at September 2005, of the $1,012 million owed in outstanding child support, $584 million were penalty payments for arrears. The goal is to encourage lapsed parents to re-enter the system without punitive action being taken against them. When lapsed parents enter an agreement with the Inland Revenue Department to make payment on their child support and penalties, previously accrued penalties will be gradually written down at 6-monthly review points, provided the parents keep to the agreement. Because not all penalties will be written off, parents are still better off if they simply pay their child support on time and do not incur penalties in the first place.

The Inland Revenue Department will also have a new power to administratively review child support levels if it believes that parents are structuring their finances in a way that deliberately lowers their income in order to avoid child support payments.

I do hear the opposing view from Opposition members, who disagree with the principle of writing off such a large amount of money. Of course, they are entitled to share their opinion in this way, and members of the House and the public will note the National Party’s minority view in the report that has come back from the select committee.

By and large, I think this legislation represents progress and will be helpful. I commend the bill to the House and hope it is expedited through its remaining stages.