The department said yesterday that it could not give an immediate answer on how the costs of the child support reform had blown out from a 2011 initial estimate of $30 million, first to $120 million approved by the Cabinet in 2012, and then to $210 million, before being scaled back to $163 million by last-minute amendments introduced in Parliament last week.
It said a Herald request for details would be answered within 20 working days under the Official Information Act.
The reform, due to take effect on April 1, will determine child support payments based on both parents' incomes and the time a child spends with each parent. Until now, payments have been based only on the non-custodial parent's income and did not take account of shared care unless both parents had the child for at least 40 per cent of the time.
On balance, the change will benefit paying parents - usually fathers - more than receiving parents, who are still most often mothers. Almost 46,000 paying parents will pay less than they do now, against only 32,691 who will pay more.
Conversely, 29,776 receiving parents will get less compared with 24,505 who will get more.
Although no figures are available, the implication is the net amount of child support paid for the 200,000 children involved will drop below the current $450 million a year.
About $210 million a year of the current payments simply goes to the government to offset the cost of sole-parent benefits. The regulatory impact statement says the government's revenue from the scheme will drop by only $115 million over 10 years, implying a drop in payments to the state of about $11.5 million a year, or 5.5 per cent.
The new system is meant to be fairer, reflecting the realities that most mothers are now in paid work and that shared care is common.
Child Poverty Action Group economist Dr Susan St John said it was "a national disgrace" that the reform achieved only "tiny improvements" for some parents at "such enormous administrative cost".
Happy with every extra cent
Henderson solo mother Lena Dunasemante will get an extra $1 a day when the child support system changes on April 1 - and she'll be grateful for every cent of it.
She has brought up her son Jaxon, who is now 14, since he was born. She had to go to court to prove his paternity. Jaxon's father had no contact for the first five years. He saw him "on and off" for about six years but has had no contact since.
"He paid child support each month without fail," Ms Dunasemante said. But it was only the minimum required from liable parents with minimal income, currently $74.30 a month. From April 1 his payments will rise to $105.90 a month - an increase of $31.60 a month.
"I will use it for Jaxon," Ms Dunasemante said. "He plays hockey, which costs $300 a season. It will go towards that, and getting him stuff for school, and clothes, and going out with his friends and stuff. It will make a difference."
The letter she received from Inland Revenue last month said her "child support income" of $25,139, after deducting a living allowance of $17,687 from her gross income of $42,826, was 76.53 per cent of the combined child support income earned by her and Jaxon's father.
Jaxon's father, a house painter, appears to be earning a low income. But his payments may have gone up either because his income has risen slightly, or because the new system still gives him an extra living allowance for his other three children.
Ms Dunasemante's mother looks after Jaxon in the mornings while she works so she has no childcare costs.
"It's not cheap raising a child and being on a benefit, and even working fulltime like I am, it's a struggle."
