Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7665. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I want to take up where Mr Robertson left off because one of the points that I made in a prior contribution one of the difficulties that we have had with child support in the past—and it is not levelled as a criticism of the Inland Revenue Department—is its inflexibility. Where you have relationship breakdown where parties to the relationship the parents cannot agree on the best way in a monetary sense to ensure the kids are looked after then the State has a role to intervene. That role is pretty inflexible because until somebody invents a technology that determines the definition of a good parent as it were a formulaic response is our next best option.Clause 44 as Mr Robertson said has introduced—and I think it is a good thing—an element of flexibility but in doing that and because we have had no clarification from the portfolio Minister Mr McClay or non-portfolio Ministers in the chair such flexibility although on the one hand being very positive also creates uncertainty on the other. So as Mr Robertson and others have asked what is the definition of inappropriate? Clause 44(b) states: “(ii) if the Commissioner considers automatic deduction inappropriate in the person’s case” they may consider “another payment method acceptable to the Commissioner.” That is great. As I have said in a previous contribution the last Labour Government did a similar thing in respect of small businesses. When the Inland Revenue Department was advised there was a difficulty everything froze and a repayment deal if you like was worked through so that the business could hopefully survive and meet its obligations. The Crown would get its money and the taxpayer would be recompensed and the deal was done if you like. On the surface it may well be that this provides a similar benefit ensuring the liable parent meets their obligation which is paramount but ensuring that it can be done in such a way that they are not buried in penalties.This is a good thing but as Mr Robertson said it would be helpful if we could get some clarification around definitions. What does appropriate mean? Is it a “finger in the air”? Is it the amount of income that somebody receives? It could be a multitude of things because it puts the commissioner—although you do not want to overly define it because that is actually defeating the purpose of the nature of flexibility. I would have thought that there would need to be at least on the record of the House which is often quoted in courts in New Zealand some sort of clarification as to the parameters of what would be considered appropriate or not. Otherwise it just simply becomes arbitrary.I see if you go to the regulatory impact statement around this particular issue on page 8 “Objectives” the objectives of this section of course are to “a) reduce child support debt” “b) reduce the implementation costs of the reforms;”—well I have to say that has come a gutser completely given the blowout that has occurred but we will write that one off for the moment—“c) improve the fairness of the child support scheme so that it reflects social and legal changes which have occurred since its introduction in 1992;” and “d) promote” indeed “the welfare of the children in particular by recognising that children are disadvantaged when child support is not paid or not paid on time.”The question is the payment of child support on time—because often payments are made but there is substantial delay often for genuine reasons often for reasons of unfair leverage from one partner on the other and a whole range of other things—is that going to be considered in terms of the factors that the commissioner would consider in respect of altering automatic payments?I think these are really important issues that will end up I suspect challenged in court. And as I say Hansard is used as evidence in court from time to time and it would I think help—and presumably the Inland Revenue Department will put out guidelines which do not have the weight of legislation around this or maybe it will not. We do not know but if you are sitting there just looking at this bill now we commend the Government for clause 44 but we have no idea actually what the parameters of those decisions will be and how they will be made. Will it be a set of criteria drawn up by officials and put to the commissioner? Will the Minister have any role in that? I presume not because the commissioner is independent.But I think as others have pointed out these are not actually political issues. They are really serious issues if we want to get this thing right and child support has been and continues to be extremely complicated.