Clark David: Child Support Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Child Support Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2020. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of this Government bill in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne the Child Support Amendment Bill. Labour will support this bill to the Social Services Committee because we believe that those who are going to be affected by it should it pass should have their say. As Mr Dunne has said 210000 children in New Zealand are affected by the legislation currently. Labour believes that decisions in this area should be guided by the principles of fairness and opportunity. These children who did not choose their particular circumstances should have opportunity and fairness as much as any other child.  
The bill amends the child support scheme that was introduced in 1992 and concerns those who provide financial support to these children by making provisions for a new child support calculation formula and some secondary changes to update the child support scheme more generally. It also amends the payment penalties and debt rules in a way that child support including debt write-offs for parents with debts to the Crown is amended.  
The present provision in the Child Support Act is expanded in respect of the formula to refer to any carer of the child who may be a parent or a non-parent who is not living with a parent of the child in a marriage civil union or de facto relationship. This is an important change as some currently do not qualify for the support. It also recognises that shared-care arrangements have changed through the years and the bill proposes a 28 percent threshold for recognising shared care; that amounts to 2 days of care per week. The new section 16 inserted by the bill relates to this. It is the Commissioner of Inland Revenue who must determine the care cost percentages of every carer under the proposed legislation. The changes that provide for a wider recognition of shared care are things that should be looked at in the select committee. It is true that the devil will be in the detail. The adequacy or inadequacy of the provisions will be highlighted I am sure by interested parties.  
Labour acknowledges the bill as a sincere attempt to wrestle with the realities of modern parenting. Labour is concerned about the effects on families and particularly any perception that this bill would absolve us all from supporting children in vulnerable circumstances. Labour will therefore support the bill to the select committee to give those who are affected by the legislation an opportunity to have their say. We do agree that the current legislation is out of date and any MP in this House who does electorate work will be able to tell stories in relation to cases they have heard where it seems that unfair treatment has been meted out. Of course these are difficult decisions and no bill can ever account for every circumstance. It is hoped that the majority of these things can be sorted out privately and that this Act in its updated form should the bill go through will be a backstop.  
For many parents living apart parental responsibility is shared these days and both remain active in their children’s lives. Work participation rates have increased since the Act was originally derived so it is now more likely that the principal carer of the child is also working. As I have mentioned there are some parents who act as caregivers who have arrangements that do not qualify under the present formula. This should be addressed. Many parents have concerns about non-payment or delayed payment of child support and this bill hopes to address that.  
There are other concerns that we imagine will come to light in the select committee which include the effect on women. There are groups that have submitted I think in the early consultation that have drawn attention to the fact that women are likely to be affected in a negative way by these changes as they are currently proposed. This is something that Labour would like to see addressed if the bill is to move further through the process. I am sure my colleague Jacinda Ardern will speak to that point when she gets up to speak to the bill shortly.  
It is also true that it was over 3 years ago that the Hon Peter Dunne said that he was going to complete a review of the child support system within 6 months. This side of the House wonders what other priorities the Government has had that has meant this bill has been shuffled down the Order Paper.  
It is this wider context that concerns us also. What we see from this side of the House is a background of cuts. We see that real funding in the health sector has dropped under the National Government we see that the early childhood education sector has faced cuts to the 20 free hours scheme that Labour introduced and we see allowances for ongoing education being cut. Against this background changes to child support may affect parents in a way that is of great concern and should be of great concern to New Zealanders. We are mindful of those changes that have happened and they will no doubt inform the submissions that we will hear in the select committee as we make our minds up about whether these changes are fair and the optimal way of amending this legislation to give a fair go and to give fairness and opportunity to those children affected by this bill.  
Since National took office the child support debt has ballooned and currently stands at over $2 billion of which $1.6 billion is penalty payments. It is clear that the current scheme is not working. It is interesting to note that on this matter it seems the National Government has had a change of heart. The last amendment to child support legislation in 2006 which allowed for debt write-downs was supported by all parties in the House except National. On this matter it appears that National is swallowing a dead rat. The problem of debt must be sheeted back because it was National that devised the scheme with the penalty payments that we currently have. It opposed those changes previously. They are there and they are the cause of concern. It is good that those payments are being addressed in the bill.  
The bill allows for further write-off of child support debt under certain circumstances. As I said it is interesting that the Government supports that because National in Opposition opposed any moves to reduce child support debt. Most debt is attributable to these penalties as I have said. In 2005 it is interesting to note Judith Collins said that “Writing off debt sends the worst possible message to absent liable parents. The Government is telling them that if they dodge their responsibilities for long enough they will get a discount. That is the wrong message to send. Those who do the right thing and pay their way will be left wondering why they bothered. Our vulnerable children deserve better than a child support collection system that rewards debt dodgers.” It will be very interesting to hear the reasoning that has shifted that position. It seems that National now supports the debt write-downs. Once again we see that Judith Collins’ tough talk in Opposition does not match her actions in Government.  
As I draw to a close I note that Labour will support the bill to the select committee because we do think that those who are affected should have their say. They had their say a long long time ago when the bill was first mooted when Mr Dunne went out consulting but much water has passed under the bridge and that debt has subsequently ballooned. We look forward to hearing that fairness and opportunity will be preserved against that background of cuts to vital services. The devil will be in the detail and I have no doubt that we will have many submissions of high quality on the adequacy of the amounts proposed in new schedule 2 “Expenditure on children” and also in the formula in new section 29 for assessing the annual amount of child support.  
Labour supports the bill to select committee and we look forward to hearing from submitters who will be affected by this bill about the adequacy of its provisions. Thank you.