A recent report tabled in the House by the Office of the Auditor General on the IRD’s management of the child support system highlights some serious issues in this rather sensitive area.
Over $1.5b is owed in child support payments.! This is forecast to rise to $7b by 2018 unless something drastic is done soon to address the problem. Of the current $1.5b outstanding, only around $195m is actually owed to parents – the rest is owed to the IRD in penalties and interest.! The OAG concluded that the severity of the penalty regime can actually act as a disincentive to people meeting their parental responsibilities, as opposed to the incentive it is supposed to be.
I think most of us agree that any parent who doesn’t take responsibility for their children by providing for the necessities of life needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. ‘Front up and take responsibility’ is the message society needs to send to those who abandon their dependants. About 68% of parents do make the correct payments on time, but that leaves 32% of parents who don’t.!
However, we need to have a system that is fair and an agency managing the system that understands its own responsibilities to the country’s citizens as well. The data in the OAG’s report shows that the IRD only calls around 40% of those who enter into the child support scheme. Remember, people enter this scheme often at a time of great turmoil and emotion. IRD should be making an effort to contact EVERYONE and work with people to outline their financial responsibilities and how to best manage the situation. A staggering 96% of all those within the child support system have had to pay a penalty at some point in time. This is astounding. The penalties are harsh – as mentioned, the OAG acknowledged this - if you are a minute late in paying, your debt jumps by 10%, then a further 2% per month. A person’s debt doubles around every 3 years.
The thing I find a little disturbing though, is that the penalty payments collected by the IRD don’t go to the parents looking after children, but straight into the IRD coffers. How about this: if a person with a child support debt dies, the IRD tries to claim that debt from the estate – the estate doesn’t go to the children, who could well do with the funds – but to the IRD.! How perverse.
At a speech in October last year, Minister Dunne said that he would have a paper to cabinet in ‘a couple of weeks’. Almost a year later, and no sight of it yet. So, like the management of most issues, Key’s cabinet collectively fiddles while Rome burns. Its becoming a common theme. Does this govt actually care? Dunne has known about this problem for around 3 years (remember the man was Revenue Minister under Labour), and still hasn’t done a thing.! Where is the plan to remedy this situation? It simply doesn’t exist. And who suffers? Kiwis who can least afford it. That’s hardly fair Mr Dunne and Mr Key.
Yeah Tracey my dad has enough money to go for 6 month trips around europe but not to pay child support it makes it alot worse when they are unwilling and able.
Man I feel sorry for you and your Ma
The bigger concern than a paper debt to the IRD is the increase in family breakdown after the law changes in the 70′s putting more children into one parent homes almost over night.
There is not an solution that would make every family a warm and healthy place but commitment to bring up a family is certainly needed to make it work.
Many families struggle financially and with relationship dissatisfaction between the adults. Todays expectation of what life can bring is often narrowly and selfishly focussed. Separation is so easy but often does not bring an answer for kids.
Penalising a Dad displaced from his family is what happens for many Dads who struggle for up to 20 years with the “fair” payments assessed by WINZ.
Many don’t meet payments nor see their kids and become indebted and depressed.
There are some ratbags around but that qualification is not just reserved for Dads.
The problem is wide spread.
A better system is needed.
A Dunne deal is one that promotes the profile of Dunne.
Family is his catch cry but evidence of any family help like all rare things would be invaluable.
@John W. It’s better to raise a child away from conflict where at least one parent can focus on the child rather than the parents trying to walk on eggshells. Children can pick up on anxiety so I do feel that in some situations it offers children more security if parents separate, especially if they are able to co-parent. How many of these children in the 70′s were living in this type of situation and what good would it have done if the parent stayed together?
Yeah I wish the world was perfect and marriages/couples could stay together. But hey it’s the real world.
Yes A Mother kids often repeat the parents behavior e.g. arguing, hitting, name calling etc. and also has been proven to give children long term psychological damage.
It can be more beneficial for children in some circumstances if the parents separate.
Woman can sometimes makes the mistake of not letting the other parent get involved with their children’s life – but occasionally they have good reasons.
You have to go through some kind of counseling and be deemed an unfit parent if you want to go through with an abortion.
Shared care is defiantly the way to maintain a good parent team – where everyone benefits and both can receive tax credits, however the bad side is both have to pay child support-which can sometimes work out to be more beneficial for the secondary carer.
The secondary carer only has to look after the children from night to morning 3 times a week. (it should be 3 whole days in my opinion)
It’s the father’s obligation to pay child support – as it does benefit their child after all. Why wouldn’t you want to pay this?
However I do fell sorry for those fathers that fall behind in payment and harsh extra penalties incur. Lose the penalties!!!
@A Mother – agreed
A Mother
I agree with the points you have covered but not all situations are the same.
Just as a tense and potentially damaging family situation may be dealt with by separation, there are often gains and losses not taken into account and a clear perspective is hard to manage for people locked into strife.
I was really referring to the posts comment on debt and matters connected with that.
I know families with Mums doing the upbringing alone and also families where Dads are in a the Solo parent role. Similar parenting loads for either way.
Any hostile parent creates problems for the family and payment arrangements in some cases promote unreasonable misery and more family division.
The all too common perception that it is a one sided matter really doesn’t hold.
Any shared arrangement is hard to work through with child support as there are gains and losses with both time and the financial repercussions. Doing whats best for the kids takes strong and co-operating parents who can think their way through it and often with help during counselling.
“Child support” often equates to dollars paid or not paid.
In recent years child support from an absent mother has been more vigorously enforced. Many arrangements are not enforceable and lawyers know it.
Marie
It is a father’s obligation to to provide support just as it is the mothers obligation also.
A Father or mother who agrees to adopt children of their spouses previous relationship/s also becomes fully liable for ongoing support after a breakup.
There are many anomalies and what is fair to a particular situation is usually not canvassed when setting a dollar figure.
I don’t agree with the generalisations cast stigmatising a liable parent or any parent who is doing their best.
For some the battle post partnership continues through the kids doing real harm.
Personal reasons for anger against child’s parent should not become a barrier for a child to carry for their life.
John W, that was beautiful
At the end of the day, dissolving bad marriages is never ideal, but it’s far better than locking them into domestic violence or even domestic homicide. In spite of what the barefoot-&-pregnant brigade would have us believe.
The state of our relationships is also shaped by the community we live and survive in.
The largest part of our child population come from families who struggle economically while the bulk of the societal wealth is in the hands of a tiny group who have few children.
“Woman can sometimes makes the mistake of not letting the other parent get involved with their children’s life – but occasionally they have good reasons.”
Absolutely true! Mistake? The first time I was in this situation, the man was an abusive alcoholic – in the end he got custody… How is this fair? Was it better for the child? Of course not – and he made sure I had no access. So it’s not just ‘woman’ who makes that mistake, yet some Family Court ponce who’d just seen Kramer vs Kramer decided that a mother who was a young orphan would be a worse parent than an alcoholic druggie.
Second time – the man just wasn’t interested! I tried for years to get him involved, but he was too absorbed in the new wife. So why blame the woman?
As a father who has shared 50/50 custody of my children i find the whole court and IRD systems miss the most important fact. In any break up the parents can cope the children just dont have the skills so end up suffering.
In my case i have 50/50 week about custody but still have to by IRD law pay $1000 month in child support.
My ex wife works full time.
None of this money is being accounted for and my children still require me to pay their school fee’s and book and uniforms.
We have a very real problem in society where the greed of some people is legally allowing children to suffer.
I hope Peter Dunne is seriously considering changes to the child support act as it is 20 years old and needs a lot more accountabaliy and transparency.
These sorts of articles, which are tantamount to just pure electioneering leave a real sour taste. Let me make this clear first I am not a National supporter, however, lest we forget that Labour were is power for many years and all they did was was raise the top level. They were happy to go along with the greens and get more money out the higher earners, so that they could not pay it and inevitably end up as government coffers. I think they need to take a good long look at themselves, do they think we are thick? Peter Dunne was revenue minister under a labour led government.
Anyway, I have had my rant. I am a guy, who according to the mean, am a high earner, although not in comparison with the rest of the OED countries. I lose a quarter of my net income with child support, where the other 75% is taken by the mortgage on the property I agreed to buy to give my son a first base, bills and lawyer’s fees. I live off my lodgers’ fees, which is not a great amount. I have my son 39% of the time,but pay full child support. I have stated to my ex that I could go shared care, however, she makes it quite clear that if I do then she will move to outside of Auckland. This would mean, due to our beautiful CS system, I would go back to full payer and lose my son in the process. So I cannot win. I really hope, that situation is sorted soon. One thing that really needs to happen is the detachment of WINZ and the child support. This will enable the government to look at it more pragmatically rather than see it as a way to avoid paying their dues. They need to lose the penalties or reduce then to a realistic level, because at the moment they are behaving like legal racketeers.
So please mister Labour STOP throwing stones and try to encourage a way forward. And if it does not get sorted prior to the election, and you get back in power, put it on your mandate and deal to it within the first three months of office and than does not mean committees that means law change. To be succinct, either put up or shut up.
I hope everyone is seeing the obvious unintended consequence of using contact time to calculate child support. This change would create an incentive for the mother to restrict access, by the father, to the children.
Major reform is needed. UK law is fair, non custodial parent pays 15% of net salary for “flesh and blood” kids. Here in NZ very unfair. My ex leaves me on benefits. He earns 70k+ P/A. His partner is working and has 2 kids for whom she is getting child support from their father. My ex husband, was supposed to pay me 250 a week for his son, but because hes nominated his partners kids as being his dependants he only has to pay me 100 a week. Plus her salary is not considered when looking at their income, SO the womens salary is not included but my ex husbands salary in supporting her kids is considered?
SO these other womens kids gets supported twice, and my son gets less than half of his entitlement, so Im expected to feed, cloth and pay school costs, on 100 a week for a rapidly growing 5 year old and on benefits when, my sons father and his partner has a joint income of 90k+ plus 200 a week from the kids own father! The law should be like UK, fathers pay for their own kids, first, if they want to hook up with a partner with kids, and they already getting child support no financial compromise for their own flesh and blood.
I agree with paying my child support and do so weekly from my benefit. My issue is WINZ never pays IRD on time and IRD add penalties to my account and say its my fault the payments are late. Yet they tell winz exactly what to pay and when to pay. Oh and its refuses to just let me pay from my bank by so and say it must be taken from winz.