Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:645;Page:14831] 
10. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Is he satisfied with the way that the Inland Revenue Department responds to notifications from custodial parents when their former partners with child support debt are either entering or leaving New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 In general yes. 
Judith Collins 
: How does the Minister think the Inland Revenue Department should have responded in the case of a mother who in January this year provided the department with the flight details of her Australian-based former husband and father of her two children who has ignored his child support obligations for 10 years owes over $20000 in child support earns A$86000 a year and comes and goes from New Zealand as he pleases; why despite being handed all the information on a plate did the Inland Revenue Department do no more than meekly ask this man as he was about the leave the country whether he would like to make a voluntary payment? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It depends on the quality of the information provided. In reality the legislation that was passed in Parliament last year which the member’s party opposed will make it easier for us to make those collections in the future. 
Moana Mackey 
: What are the benefits of the changes to allow a partial write-off of late payment penalties and how successful have they been? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The measures I referred to in the earlier answer that the member’s question seeks information on have been extremely successful. In fact as a result of that legislation around 80 percent of liable parents whom we wrote off some debt for in the year to 31 December had actually had a debt that was more than 1 year outstanding. Of those parents a further 70 percent have subsequently reduced their debt levels. What that means is that more child support is being paid and getting through to more children. That has to be successful. 
Judith Collins 
: Why did the Inland Revenue Department inform the woman on 14 January that it was going to take action and that the father of her children “will be in for a big surprise on the 23rd of January when he tries to leave the country” only to do no more than ask him whether he would like to pay off his debt and why did the Inland Revenue Department not do more when it had exact details of when and where he would be and for weeks in advance? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: As the member well knows I am by law not permitted to discuss individual cases but if she cares to raise it with me privately I am happy to have that followed through by officials. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that a huge number of parents who are categorised as “liable” by the Family Court are just parents who want to be involved in the day-to-day care of their children but cannot because current Family Court law results in denoting one parent as a part-time carer and the other as having full-time financial obligations; does he believe that a presumption for shared parenting—a policy promoted by United Future—would dramatically reduce the number of parents in the child support system as well as ensure that children had more meaningful relationships with both parents after separations? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am not responsible for the Family Court aspect of childcare policy but I do agree very strongly with the member’s contention that most parents do want to be involved in the care of their children and that shared parenting is in fact a very positive step forward. I congratulate her on the work she has done in promoting this and hope that it will be possible to make greater allowance for shared parenting arrangements in the future. 
Judith Collins 
: Why does the Minister not instruct the Inland Revenue Department to make greater use of its existing power to apply for arrest warrants in order to prevent these deadbeat dads from walking away from their financial obligations to their very own children; and why does this particular Government he supports put so-called freedom of movement rights above the rights of good custodial mums and their children—why are those rights more important? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: In fact since I have been Minister the department has made greater use of its powers to seek arrest warrants. One of the interesting consequences has been that whenever that has occurred in all but four cases we have been able to get repayments made. Only in four cases have we had to resort to arrests. So the complaint the member makes has actually been overtaken by events.