The Government is seeking to make it easier and fairer for
parents to make child support payments - but also make it
harder to avoid stumping up.
Revenue Minister Peter Dunne today released a discussion
document, Supporting Children, outlining wide-ranging
proposals to change the system.
Parents owe about $2 billion but only about $600,000 of that
is unpaid child care payments while the rest is penalties.
Mr Dunne said the scheme, which arranges financial support
for the care of 210,000 children, needed to be fairer. At the
moment, for example, a dad might care for a child before and
after school every day but because he did not have them for
40 percent of nights (the current test) he was not considered
to have shared care.
One of the options was to change the measure to a tiered
system starting as low as 14 percent of nights and
recognising other periods of time.
Other options around changing payments calculations included
using an estimate of how much it cost to raise a child as a
basis for payments, and taking the income of both parents
into account - not just that of the absent parent.
Mr Dunne said most of the principal payments were made - 89
percent - but there were issues with penalties building up.
Options to tackle payment, penalties and debt included:
* making it compulsory for child support payments to be
automatically deducted from salary and wages;
* reducing penalties after people made repayments for a
reasonable length of time;
* providing an amnesty on penalty fees for people who pay the
whole original debt;
* allowing penalties to be written off in some cases -- for
example, when someone is ill.
"An important part of getting the scheme right will be
creating a situation where paying parents are more likely to
comply with their obligations voluntarily," Mr Dunne said.
"They are more likely to do that if they see their
obligations as fair, transparent and reasonable - and not
based upon some formula that seems to have no regard for
their individual circumstances."
The document also looked at tightening up on non-parents
claiming child support -- in some cases teens have left home
and set up with people parents did not approve of but who
they found they had to pay.
Mr Dunne said the scheme was introduced 18 years ago and was
"outdated and sometimes unfair".
Families were often more complex: both parents were more
likely to be working and often separated fathers had a
greater role caring for children than in the past.
It was better if parents could reach their own arrangements
but the scheme was a good backstop when that could not be
worked out, he said.
The proposals would not please everyone but both parents had
to share responsibility. Officials are trying to improve the
tracking of absentee parents - about 27 percent of debtors
are in Australia and 2 percent in other parts of the world.
The proposals, if adopted, would be more costly for Inland
Revenue to administer.
Chief Families Commissioner Carl Davidson said parents needed
support to continue to parent together as about 21 percent of
households with dependent children were single-parent.
He said child support should be paid directly to the carer
parent not through Inland Revenue and overseas experience
showed people were more happy to pay when they saw the money
going directly to their children rather than government
departments.
He also said the system needed to account better for changing
circumstances and flexibility around who paid what.
Every Child Counts spokeswoman Deborah Morris-Travers
welcomed the proposals and said children in single parent
homes were over-represented in poverty statistics.
She called on the Government to drop the domestic purposes
benefit penalty for women who would name the dad.
The discussion document will be on Inland Revenue's website
with submissions closing on October 29 and legislation would
be introduced some time next year.
Labour's Stuart Nash said National had campaigned
"hysterically" on the issue and was now taking a leisurely
approach to fixing problems.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.