Turner Judy: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5384] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I rise in support of the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). When parents separate and have to parent their children while funding two households and the additional costs incurred by access arrangements things can get pretty financially tight and be pretty emotionally stressful. At the Social Services Committee we heard from parents who felt they were anonymous funders liable and lonely. We heard from parents who received the minimum liable-parent payment from ex-partners who skilfully used business mechanisms to hide income. We heard from those who wanted both parents’ income taken into consideration and those who wanted calculations to more accurately reflect the time spent with both parents. We also heard from some who were burdened with both liable-parent payments and the costs of the new or reconstituted families they now supported. A number of submitters wanted evidence of how their liable-parent payments were spent with many believing they were funding their ex-partner’s exotic overseas holidays or drug habits rather than the children whom the money was meant for. At least one submitter wanted there to be an upper limit of liability for each child. 
But for me one submitter stood out from the rest. He was a dad who had never ever before considered making a submission to a select committee. He was so passionate about his experience and the conclusions he had come to regarding liable-parent payments that he was motivated to drive for hours to come to Wellington and appear before us. He is the custodial parent of his two girls. When his relationship disintegrated and battle lines were drawn he came to the realisation that no one was going to win in a war that was about to erupt over the care arrangements for his children—least of all the children. 
He proposed an alternative approach that involved him being the primary caregiver but with his children having both scheduled and spontaneous contact with their mother whenever they wanted. At his suggestion and by mutual agreement no money would change hands. His comment to the committee was: “I feel that if anyone should pay I should be paying my ex-wife for the privilege of being the primary caregiver.” His story serves to remind us that financial concerns should never be allowed to create barriers to a parent-child relationship and removing barriers is exactly what this bill is all about. However the liable-parent payment system is well overdue for a serious rethink. 
These are some of the questions I think need to be part of that consideration. Firstly does the Inland Revenue Department’s current formula for calculating payments undermine the opportunity for more equitable financial arrangements? Secondly when the Inland Revenue Department makes a mistake in its calculations how easy is it for the mistake to be remedied? We heard that it is very difficult. Thirdly should the cost of access be factored into the formula? Fourthly can we devise a more flexible sliding scale when counting the number of days children spend with each parent instead of the current 40 percent contact that is required when calculating liable-parent payments? Should both parents’ economic position be taken into consideration when support is calculated? Should custodial parents have to give some sort of account for how payments are used? Does the benefit system need to develop more flexibility so that more equitable parenting orders can be designed and implemented? 
These were all questions raised by submitters that were unable to be dealt with in this amendment bill. But United Future believes that we need to look closely at the reforms that are now present in other jurisdictions to see whether we can learn from others. We need not allow this amendment to be the end of the matter. 
Let us be very clear that parental responsibilities do not diminish because the parent to child relationship has disintegrated. Parental responsibilities do not reduce because two households are involved. Parental responsibility does not shrink in any way because parents have repartnered have reconstituted families or have had additional children to a new partner. Unless there are extenuating circumstances children have the right to have meaningful contact with both parents. We need to be mindful of all those considerations as we move beyond this amendment bill and start to look at how better we could be implementing a system that serves the interests of firstly the children but secondly of both parents. 
I do not think any of us having heard the evidence in the select committee would quibble about the fact that the current legislation as it stands even with this amendment bill which is an improvement serves the needs of the people it claims to. So United Future will support this amendment bill. 
I was very pleased to hear the Minister the Hon Peter Dunne talk about the discussions he had just last week in Australia with officials who have already engaged in a round of reforms on this matter. He has had serious discussion with them and United Future is intending on making sure that Cabinet seriously considers the need for some reforms that are long overdue in New Zealand. However we are very happy to support the third reading of this amendment bill.