Ardern Jacinda: Child Support Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Child Support Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8300. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 There were quite a lot of interjections from the other side of the Chamber during Sue Moroney’s contribution on this bill the Child Support Amendment Bill and I would really welcome Mr Sabin or perhaps the chair of the Social Services Committee standing up and taking a call. If you have got some evidence to refute what Ms Moroney was rightfully querying I think using the Committee stage which is what it is intended for then I would really welcome Mr Sabin doing that. But I have to say that my previous experience of Mr Sabin has been that his interventions are often slightly antagonistic—I am going to be honest. And I think it was probably quite fair of Sue Moroney to instead just say: “I am asking a legitimate question. If you have alternative evidence”— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: You called me a scab. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I am happy to clarify our comments previously in the select committee; I do not think now is the place. Now is not the place Mr Lotu-Iiga to discuss scabs. This is the debating chamber. 
I want to talk about the discretion that is granted in the bill to the commissioner around the deduction of individual payments and I do think that discretion is important in a bill like this. In terms of the kind of discretion though that Sue Moroney has referred to—I think it is only fair that she seek clarification on that matter. I have to admit that I am dragging back into the recesses of my mind. I remember the debates that were had around new families. Where new families are formed by liable parents in particular what then is their responsibility on an ongoing basis to their new family versus their existing biological family no matter how many years of separation or importantly the amount of income that is brought into the home by a new parent where the non-liable parent is no longer in their place? 
I think what was an important principle discussed by the select committee though was that regardless of whether or not a custodial parent re-partners with someone with all the wealth in the world it is still ultimately the responsibility of a biological parent to contribute to the upbringing of their child. I think that is a principle we should stand absolutely firm on. That means that even if a mother re-partners with a very well-to-do individual or a father re-partners in that same kind of scenario—it does not matter which gender; it does not matter who the liable parent is or who the custodial parent is—the principle is that the responsibility follows the biological parents wherever they may be and the calculation applies to those parents. 
I think that is right and fair regardless of how many years they have been separated. That is certainly what I think this Committee would intend to be on the record—that when it comes to discretionary provisions our intent is that the responsibility lies with those parties. But when it comes to the deduction regime there is some importance to a certain degree of discretion particularly—and this is one of the things I remember discussing—when you are involving individuals who have limited income. They might be beneficiaries including the liable parent who might be a beneficiary. We do need to take into account the ability to factor in their income levels and whether automatic deductions would cause someone to dip below what would be considered a fair and reasonable ability to financially survive. 
One of the points we also wanted to make though concerns the change of the regime so that it is an opt-out system. Until now of course automatic deductions from employees’ wages have been permitted only on an opt-in basis and we are reversing that onus now. That is quite a significant change. That means that the Inland Revenue Department’s guidelines for notifying liable parents of intent to disclose personal information to an employer has not yet been developed—that is my understanding. But it is our view that if we apply natural justice to these situations liable parents should of course have the ability to object to the disclosure of information. 
We have had examples before the select committee which we heard and agreed with that said that under certain circumstances you would not necessarily want your employer being aware of a deduction for a child that they may not even know that you have. It is up to that individual’s own conscience as to how they manage that. So we wanted to take into account the ability of discretion there. But we have not really thought more broadly about whether or not this automatic deduction regime does allow discretion in other circumstances. 
Equally there are certainly going to be examples where there will be potentially unfortunate and unjust disclosures of personal information by the State because we have seen them in the past. Inappropriate disclosures by the State have unfortunately become quite a common occurrence. The State has proven itself—be it Work and Income be it ACC—to be a poor manager of people’s individual information. What protections will we have in place to ensure that this information the opt-out regime is dealt with with the due care that it needs? That is something I would put to the Minister in the chair. If he at some point were able to speak to some of these concerns then that would be worthwhile I think to the Committee. 
One of the other concerns we raised though is that when it comes to employers they will be bearing the brunt of the administrative cost over this now opt-out regime. This was something we wanted to flag particularly where small-business owners might be impacted by a deduction regime. There did not seem to be any regulatory impact assessment of what costs small businesses—or large businesses—would incur through deduction policies like this and I would have been really interested to see what impacts that would have. But I also want to point out that when it comes to things like deduction regimes debt reduction—which is another significant part of this bill—and the idea of trying to reduce down penalties for us the principle we were relying on is what we can do to ensure that on an ongoing basis we try to encourage more parents to ensure fulfilment of their responsibilities under this legislation? 
If we have evidence to suggest that the high burden of debt that an individual might be carrying might be reducing the likelihood of their coming back into the system and doing what is right and paying their way then we should look at how to reduce that. That is a reasonable thing to do and certainly we accept that. Judith Collins however did not seem to accept that and I think it is only fair to point out that in 2005 in her ongoing way of taking an approach that seems to be purely punitive without taking into account the evidence base or what impact it might have on a child she said: “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.” 
We know that the evidence actually says otherwise and that it is penalty payments that seem to be accruing in a lot of cases. If we can do something to ensure that we engage parents back into the regime then that is what we should be doing whilst of course making them responsible. But in 2007 Judith Collins went further than that. She wanted to ensure that action was being taken at the border against parents who default on their child support payments. And I have to say that if we are picking up traffic infringements at the border why are we not picking non-paid child support payments? 
In 2008 in fact Judith Collins supported making avoiding child support an arrestable offence. Where is it now? Where is it now? Where is that hard line that the Government wants to take on parents who are not paying their way? It was easy in Opposition was not it to make all of those statements. Well where are the provisions now? Only within the past 2 weeks I have had a case of an individual from Australia who has not been paying their way. They are in New Zealand we know where they are and what is the Inland Revenue Department doing? Unfortunately very little and that must be enormously frustrating for the individuals in this case who are not even biological parents but just want the parent of this child to do the right thing and pay their way. 
If the Inland Revenue Department had come to the Government and said: “We think we need these powers.” then I would hope that the Government would act. Now we are saying that there is a case for the Government to be looking into these powers. Judith Collins seemed to see it before. Why now has it suddenly escaped the Government’s view? The Government seems happy to be focusing on welfare fraud. Well we already invest $39 million chasing that each and every single year. What about investing a little bit more and chasing some of the debt that has been taken away from our kids as well? I would ask the Minister whether that was explored. I would be quite interested to hear the rationale for why it was not a part of this bill.