Editorial: Child support laws riddled with flaws

OPINION: The one certainty when it comes to the child support scheme review is that it will leave someone disgruntled.

It is an area, as Revenue Minister Peter Dunne observed in this newspaper, where angels and politicians should fear to tread.

In an ideal world, the Government would not need to be involved. Estranged parents would put their own interests to one side, agree on an arrangement that ensured their children's financial interests were put ahead of any other disputes, and then honour that arrangement.

However, it is not an ideal world, and support is too often sucked into a toxic swamp of other unresolved issues surrounding a broken relationship. That is why the child support scheme covers 210,000 children, and why the Government must make the system work better.

That the system is failing is clear from the fact that most of the $1.94 billion of child-support debt comprises penalties, evidence both that a substantial number do not regard it as fair – if they did, they would pay – and that they can effectively evade their responsibilities.

The Government has got off to a sound start, with the review identifying some key flaws with the current scheme. It fails to reflect the changes in New Zealand since it was introduced 18 years ago, both in the way courts now approach custody issues and in the way families, fractured or not, operate.

It is absurd that the standard formula takes account of only the non-custodial parent's income. In families where the parents are still together, it is now more common for both to work, and to share financial responsibility for the children, even if it is done unevenly. If, in separated families, the custodial parent works, there is no reason not to expect them to contribute, and for the payments made by the other parent to reflect that expectation.

The current scheme also fails to take proper account of the wide range of care that can be provided by the non-custodial parent. Under the current scheme, there is no reduction in child support until the non-custodial parent is caring for the child for 40 per cent of the nights in a year. That sets the threshold too high. It also lacks the flexibility to recognise the reality of shared responsibilities.

Then there is the failure of some parents to pay what they should. The draconian penalty system appears to be little deterrent to this, and indeed might, once the amount owed climbs, prove a disincentive to trying to put things right. Capping the amount that can be levied in penalties is one possible solution.

On the other side of that equation, the proposal raised by the Government of having deductions made directly from pay packets is attractive. The certainty of children being provided for outweighs any reservations about privacy. At the same time, the Government should also look at how it can prevent parents ordering their financial affairs to evade meeting their responsibilities.

The system needs to be simple, efficient, transparent and equitable, but, above all, it needs to make sure that it puts the interests of the children where they should be – first.

- © Fairfax NZ News