10. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
to the Minister of Revenue
Is he satisfied with the collection rate of child support from liable parents; if not, why not?
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) Link to this
I would always like to see the collection rate for child support be higher, and that is one of the reasons behind the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4), which is currently before the House. That bill is designed to get more money directly to children.
Does the Minister believe that the minimum formula assessment of $730 per year, or $14 per week, is adequate to provide for the seven, eight, nine, or even 10 children it currently is providing for?
There will always be issues around the way the formula is developed and applied. The important question is to make sure that the money raised from child support goes to the children. At the moment, $651 million of the $1.1 billion taken in child support is penalties, which never go to the children. My focus is on having the $450 million that is owed for those children directed to them.
Why has he not increased the minimum child support payment to a level that “better [reflects] the costs of raising a child”, as United Future’s policy promises to do?
The issue of the cost of a child, and the cost of raising a child, is under consideration. I have recently had discussions with the Australian authorities regarding the new formula that they are adopting, and it is something we will look at to see how applicable it is here in terms of a translation.
Why is he allowing parents with outstanding child support debt to leave New Zealand, when that is directly opposed to United Future’s own policy, which is “do not allow them”—parents—“to leave the country with debt outstanding”; why is it still happening?
We have a reciprocal agreement with Australia regarding the collection of child support obligations on both sides of the Tasman. One of the reasons why we have a large outflow at the moment is the high level of penalties. The Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) seeks to remove those penalty restrictions for a number of those people, in return for their entering into a repayment regime.
Why is it acceptable that of the 65,319 liable parents assessed to pay only $14 per week towards the upkeep of their children, 44,339 are not managing to sustain even that $14 per week payment?
That goes back to the point I referred to in the primary answer. We do need to improve collection rates. Where there are impediments, they need to be removed. One of the big impediments for a number of people at the moment is the very high level of penalties. I remind the member that none of the penalty payments go to the children. I would much rather that the focus was on making liable parents pay what they owe, and on having that money directed to the children, to whom it ought to be directed.