Cunliffe David: Child Support Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Child Support Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8290. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is well worth the Committee’s time to take a considered view of Part 1 of this bill the Child Support Amendment Bill because it is really at the heart of the bill. It is a very major part that covers the mysterious formula that Sam Lotu-Iiga either never read or cannot remember and certainly did not want to table. I am very happy for Sam to elucidate to the Committee when he next takes a call as to how he believes this formula is actually going to work in practice. 
What the Labour Opposition knows is that there are two core failings with this part of the bill. The first is that it embodies the missed opportunity to put children first and nobody I think could have described that as well as Sue Moroney who reinforced to us that families in this situation are struggling anyway. This bill has managed to score two own goals. It is going to cost the taxpayer according to official advice $42 million a year more to implement than the current law. So it is going to cost $42 million more a year to run but it is going to put less money in the hands of vulnerable children. How can that be—more cost to the taxpayer and less money to vulnerable children? 
Alfred Ngaro 
: They’re worth it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Oh they are worth it. Yes they are worth it National Government. Would it not be good if you did something positive about it? 
It is not simply the matter of the complexity of the formula. In our last pre - dinner break discussion in this part of the Committee stage at some length we debated across the Committee the complexity of the formula; the difficulty couples would have in understanding where that left them; the reverse impact in that it would thereby be harder for them to form voluntary agreements about their separation plans; and that therefore perversely this highly complex and opaque formula would more often be needed precisely because it was hard to understand. Nobody is arguing that life is not complex or that it is going to be easy to write a law that satisfies the full diversity of family situations. What the Government has been saying is that therefore you should not be surprised if the formula is complex but that does not necessarily follow. What we want is a formula that delivers more benefit to children in need that does not lock liable parents out of the system if they get behind and that provides the strongest possible incentive for liable parents to meet their child support obligations. 
How does this bill measure up? It is not transparent. It has shied away from legislating for the primacy of the interests of the child. It has shied away from automatic pass-through so that liable parents know that every dollar that they contribute will go to their own children. It does not do that and my colleague Dr Rajen Prasad has very eloquently pointed out that all the international evidence is that collections are improved if that is the case but it does not do that. It does not put more money in the hands of the children. It does not simplify the system. It does not make it more transparent. It does not make it more directional. What it does do is waste an opportunity. 
I used to for my sins be the Associate Minister of Revenue responsible for child support before Sam Lotu-Iiga and his colleagues were members of this House. It was quite some time ago. I am— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: About 4 years. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No no no it was probably longer than 4 years ago. But what I do remember is that the junior Opposition backbencher sent to bite me on the ankles at the time was one Judith Collins. She used to rail about the accumulation—I still remember the day that accumulated child support debt hit half a billion dollars. That was a terrible tragedy. And it was because we do not want any arrears. We want all that money paid so that kids can benefit and the taxpayer is not copping it. Half a billion dollars. What is Judith Collins saying today now that debt has reached $2.3 billion and has gone up a billion dollars on National’s watch in the last 3 years? 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Nothing saying nothing. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Saying nothing. She is too busy working on her leadership campaign and getting around the backbench assuring them of all the awhi in the world. That is what Judith—and if you had any doubt about it just ask the bad boy just ask the bad boy Simon Lusk about it. No wonder she is not focused on child support—no wonder she is not focused on child support. She used to rail in this House that it was a travesty that the formula did not deliver for children. Seven years later the National Government has come up with—