Editorial: Child-support reform promises fairer, flexible system

OPINION: The test of any child-support system is that it is fair to parents and puts the interests of children first.

New Zealand's outdated system fails this test. It lacks the flexibility to consider the individual circumstances of the parents and of their children. Too often the system produces adversarial outcomes with disputes between parents over access and money. These are injurious to the best interests of the children and add to the emotional trauma that a family separation inevitably creates.

At present single parents with children make up 21 per cent of households. Some couples who have separated are able to reach amicable settlements. Many others require the arbitrary and often unfair child-support system for which a discussion paper is now proposing major reforms.

One of the most inflexible elements of current child support is the 40 per cent rule. Under this, parents' child support payments can be reduced if they care for their child 145 nights a year, but gives a parent who has the children for just less than this little chance of getting the reduction.

The proposed change would take account of the reality that the custody arrangements of separated parents can vary markedly. It would introduce a sliding scale of reductions depending on how often a parent cared for a child, ranging down to 14 per cent of nights.

Another inflexibility is that the primary carer's income is not taken into account when a payment level is determined. Yet, in today's society, not only might primary carers be in the workforce but they could conceivably earn more than their former partners.

Both parents' income should therefore be factored into child-support arrangements. So, too, should the income of a primary carer's new partner, perhaps once they have been together long enough to be defined as being in a de facto relationship in a legal sense.

The discussion paper also recognises that the expense of raising children varies according to their age, with higher costs as they grow older, and that family size is also relevant, as each subsequent child costs less to raise. These factors should also be recognised in child-support payments.

In addition to the reforms floated in the document, the Government should review the effectiveness of the overall child-support system, which might include the determinations of the Family Court that effect it. It would help if this review addressed the suspicion of some fathers, and their support groups, that the court is biased against them, by studying the results of cases in which a father has sought more time with their child.

Resistance to the current system is undoubtedly one reason why unpaid child support payments and penalties for non-payment now stand at almost $2 billion.

The review could be carried out by the Families Commission, the body created in 2004 as part of the price for United Future leader Peter Dunne to support Helen Clark's government, but which has achieved little. It was Dunne who, as Revenue Minister, released the discussion paper on the child support system.

The hope is that the paper's recommendations will create a more transparent and fairer system based on the differing circumstances of each case. This should lead those parents who are liable to consider that their payments are reasonable and to meet their obligations.

But if the level of non-compliance does not fall under a reformed system, compulsory deductions of payments from wages and salaries might have to be considered.

It has been suggested that it might take two or three years to reform the child support system, but this is unacceptable – the current scheme is hurting families now. The proposals in the discussion paper would encourage shared parenting, not place barriers in the way of achieving this, and Dunne must regard child-support reform as an issue demanding swift action.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First