Adams Paul: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Adams Paul: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19571] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future members who will be supporting this bill but I particularly want to speak to an amendment that I have proposed to clause 7. This bill enables the rate of benefit paid to solo parents to be reduced if they fail or refuse to identify the other parent of the child make an application for assessment of child support or give all information required under the Child Support Act. It is often forgotten in this debate however that penalties under section 70A of that Act are not all about refusing to name the father. Even if everyone knows who the liable parent is the custodial parent may still face a penalty if he or she fails or refuses to make an application for assessment of child support. This amendment allows the State to file for child support if the identity of the other parent is known but the sole parent refuses to apply for child support. It draws on powers available under section 61C of the principal Act which allows officers of the department to act on behalf of the beneficiary in any proceedings under the Child Support Act. In these situations the issue is not who is liable; it is about whether that person should be made liable. 
Absent parents not only deny their children their presence in their home but also their associated financial contribution. Research by the Ministry of Social Development indicates that there are three common reasons why solo parent beneficiaries do not apply for child support even though the identity of the liable parent is not in question. One reason is that if the liable parent is in a position to pay and is willing to pay more than the penalty in support of his or her child it can be in the solo parent’s beneficial financial interest to have a direct payment from the liable parent rather than to make an application for child support. 
Apparently both Work and Income and Inland Revenue Department staff often point out this loophole to solo parent beneficiaries when they are making a decision about whether to apply for child support. In some cases this private financial arrangement is a specific trade-off for not applying for child support. Another reason relates to benefit fraud. If a solo parent beneficiary is living with the liable parent he or she may be reluctant to initiate a process that might lead officials to match their addresses. It is also not in their interests for child support to be deducted from the household income even if they can avoid being found out. If the liable parent is also on a benefit then it is much more likely that the nature of their relationship would be discovered through an application for child support. The final reason is a reluctance amongst some people especially beneficiaries to deal with State agencies—something that an application for child support would inevitably involve. 
Clearly none of these are particularly compelling reasons not to seek some form of child support from the liable parent. Secret arrangements may mean that in reality the child is being supported by the liable parent but the system of child support is there to ensure that liable parents are held financially responsible for their children. This is after all a social security bill and this amendment proposes that the State should be able to step in to secure the child’s interests. United Future will be looking towards the other parties to support this amendment.