Child Support Amendment Bill

With a great deal of pleasure I move, That the Child Support Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The measures that are proposed in this bill bring our child support scheme up to date and make it much fairer for the 210,000 children and families who are involved in the scheme. Since the current child support arrangements were introduced in 1992, child support has been a backstop for families when separated parents are unable to reach agreement over the financial support of their children. But times have changed since 1992, and the purpose of this bill is to update the scheme so that it better reflects the social changes that have occurred in parenting and workforce participation over the past 20 years. That includes a new child support calculation formula, which recognises the different circumstances of parents today; the latest research available on how much it costs to raise a child; and improvements to the payment, penalty, and debt rules in order to reduce the risk of parents dropping out of the system because they are simply overwhelmed by the growing burden of debt. They are the main features of the bill, but its underlying principles are simple: that child support payments are fairly calculated and collected for the benefit of the children they are intended for, and that parents continue to take financial responsibility for their children when a relationship breaks down.

I feel particularly strongly about that latter point. About 40 percent of the correspondence that I receive as Minister of Revenue relates to child support. I am shocked at the number of parents who want to deny any responsibility for their children because the relationship may have been a long time ago. The majority of parents fully understand their responsibilities and they do attempt to adhere to them, and that is good. But there are those, unfortunately, who seem to think this is the most ultimate case of out of sight, out of mind. I am grateful to those good, loyal, hard-working parents who want to see a fair system, and to the many others who took the opportunity through the extensive consultation process associated with the development of this bill for their input. I am also grateful for the efforts of officials across several agencies who collaborated on the policy development work, and the legal drafters who worked on the detail of this legislation.

This has been a long journey. It began in 2008 during the term of the previous Labour Government. It saw a discussion paper issued around the time that the Government changed. It saw the legislation that arose from that discussion process introduced in, I think, from memory, 2009. The select committee process took place following that, and now it is passing through the House. The first set of changes will take effect from April 2014, and the second set a year later. We still have a long way to go. But as this bill now stands we are a lot closer, I think, to achieving better and more equitable outcomes for the children and the parents who are involved in the child support scheme.

I want to make this point, as I have made at every stage of this debate: child support is not a default position. It is the backstop when things fail. The emphasis has to be on parents seeking to reach equitable and cooperative agreements amongst themselves. We have got to stop this mentality of simply leaving it all to child support, because that is where the divisions arise and that is where the tensions occur. I want to see much greater emphasis placed on parents reaching their own mutually acceptable arrangements. I know this was a point that came through very strongly during the Social Services Committee’s consideration of the bill. I thank the committee members for their efforts, for their consideration of the legislation, and for the recommendations to change the bill in various areas that they proposed.

Child support is a vexed area. It is not one that you can ever legislate for every circumstance, because of the nature of the way in which families form and relationships occur. But what this legislation can do, at best, is provide a framework. This is what I think we have achieved in this bill. There will always be those who will fit at the boundary, or not fit, or who will feel that the system somehow is unfair in respect of their circumstances. There is not a great deal we can do about that. The challenge that we face in looking at changes to the legislation—and it was a point that was highlighted by the Opposition at several stages during the debate—is simply this: we have a system at the moment, under the current legislation, that in my view is unnecessarily inflexible. It imposes a very rigid formula, which takes little account of individual circumstances. That is easy to run, because you just simply draw the line and say: “This is the side of it that you fall. If you feel aggrieved, tough.”

The criticism we faced during the development of this bill and at the select committee was that we were going to be introducing a more complicated system. That is the trade-off for one that is more flexible, for one that takes greater account of individual circumstances and of individual stages of a child’s life, and the formula reflects payments accordingly. I say to those who say that the system will now be more complex, and then say you have got to get an accountant or a lawyer to work your way through it, that is absolute bunkum. You do not. But I say to people who run that line, you cannot then argue for a fairer, more responsive system without accepting that flexibility brings its own challenges. No one—no one—stands up for child support as it currently stands. It is difficult to administer. We have high levels of non-compliance. We have aggrieved parents on both sides of the argument. What this legislation does, by recognising the change in circumstances over the last 20 years, by increasing the formula for shared parenting arrangements, and by also addressing, as I say, the application of the child support formula itself, is make a genuine attempt to recognise the circumstances of the parents who take advantage of that system.

But I close on this point. I am delighted, at the end of what for me has been a 6-year journey on this bill, to see it is going to pass tonight. I am really delighted about that. But I want to send a message to all parents out there that in the situation of a relationship breaking down, whatever aggravation there might be or whatever bitterness might surround the situation, your primary responsibility is to your children. And your primary responsibility, both of you, is to sit down and try to negotiate arrangements that provide for the effective care and maintenance of those children. If that cannot be achieved, then child support is there to help you. But do not simply look at the system and say “That’s the default. We just go there automatically, and we both end up mutually unhappy.”, because the long-term losers from that are very clear to identify—the kids. And the kids are the one group who do not choose their parents, they do not choose their circumstances, but they are influenced dramatically by them.

Let us not kid ourselves that this legislation or any legislation is the ultimate answer, but this bill recognising contemporary situations is a vast improvement on the current Act. It is one that will be much fairer in many respects for more people. It is in tune with the mood of contemporary society. I think it is a good step forward, and I am delighted that Parliament is going to give it its third reading this evening.

There is a kids’ story about a little engine that was trying to get up a hill. It was trying and trying and trying, and to get to the top it had to say that it was the little engine that could. Unfortunately, the Minister of Revenue, who has just resumed his seat, appears to be the engine that could not. This is a huge missed opportunity.

We all know that life takes interesting twists and turns that cannot be predicted. We all know that it is impossible to write a law that takes account of every unique personal circumstance. But if the Minister was so committed in his final words to the paramountcy of the interests of children, why did he miss the opportunity, firstly, to stay around and listen to this, but, secondly, to write into the Child Support Amendment Bill that old principle of jurisprudence that the interests of the child should always come first? Why did National members of the select committee in question, I am advised, block a request by Labour members that the Social Services Committee write to that Minister and ask that that principle that he has just signed up to in passionate terms—for him—in the House be written into the law? Why was it not good enough for the Minister to put into the law the principle that the interests of the children should come first? It is the right thing to do. It is also in society’s interests, because if children are given the best start they go on to be the most productive contributing members of society. As members opposite who have a history of law enforcement experience know well, the children who go off the rails early are so hard to get back on the rails, and the costs to society of lives gone wrong are so huge.

So here we are. We have, as a Parliament, taken years to look at child support. I just want to flick back to some history. Around the time the Government changed in 2008 there was $1.3 billion of uncollected child support debt and penalties. Four years later under this Minister’s watch that has doubled to $2.7 billion of unpaid child support. It has doubled in 4 years. So the “Minister for Small Change” has fiddled while the child support system has been burning to the ground—burning to the ground.

The previous Opposition spokesperson, one Judith Collins, said: “Writing off debt sends the worst possible message to absent liable parents.”

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Who said that?

Judith Collins. What does this bill do? It writes down penalties. I happen to think, and Labour happens to think, that that is an appropriate change to make in that aspect of the bill. The penalties regime is so harsh that when liable parents get behind, they quite often cannot catch up. They financially cannot possibly do it. Too many of them leave the country, and that has the perverse effect of separating parents—usually fathers—further and further from their children, who need that contact.

So it is appropriate to reduce that debt, but why did it take 4 years for the Government to change its mind? At least Peter Dunne has done the right thing in that respect. It is a shame that Judith Collins took the politically populist way out and simply slammed the parents. I come back to the central point. If this was the right thing, why did it take the Government 4 years to do it, and why has it now, despite the urging of the Opposition, refused to even consider putting in the legislation the principle that the interests of the children should come first? This is a huge missed opportunity.

Let us talk a little bit about the formula change, which is at the heart of this bill. The Minister says it needs to take account of more factors—that is true. Therefore, it is to some degree more complex—well, yes, that may be true. But the formula is still not flexible enough, it is still not transparent enough, and it is still clearly unable to deal with the full range of family circumstances. And what are some of the key issues? The adequacy of the payments is really in question, because the formula cuts in when a custodial parent has the child only 28 percent of the time. I do not know how they worked out 28 percent—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Two out of seven.

Two out of seven. There you go—2 days a week. That is a very small share of time for that formula to cut in. And the implication of that is that for the primary custodial parent—which, let us face it, is usually the mother—the analysis presented to the select committee says that they are likely to get less on balance for the support of those children. Less money will go to the mothers and the children under this formula, and yet the costs of administering it, by the Government’s own admission in the regulatory impact statement, are going to go up. There is $100 million—$100 million—in extra administration cost.

💬 Andrew Little: How much?

A hundred million dollars’ worth. The Government is buying $100 million of red tape to wrap a bow round a debt mountain that has doubled on its watch.

In addition to that, there is $42 million more that is going into the estimated Crown liability for the gap between what liable parents pay and what custodial parents get. So there is $100 million more red tape, and there is a gap of $42 million more. This does not sound like a system that has suddenly been fixed. This is a system that is being fiddled with, and, frankly, the children of New Zealand expect and deserve more from this Government than fiddling with a system that it has taken 4 years to bring to this House.

So it is with considerable sadness, rather than anger, in any sense, that the Labour Opposition is saying that this is so much of a missed opportunity that, we are sorry, we cannot support the passage of this bill. We say to the Minister and the Government again now to stop and take it back to the drawing board, write in the primacy of the interests of the children, introduce real-world flexibility into the payment formula, make it transparent, protect the position of the mothers and the children, and make this a system that is worth Parliament’s time. Let us not be the Parliament of small, tinkering changes because we have not got the vision or the courage to make the big ones that we need.

💬 Andrew Little: Step change, not small change.

Step change, not small change—an echo from the Committee stage, wonderfully penned by our justice spokesperson, Andrew Little. Step change, not small change. That is at the heart of this debate.

It is doubly disappointing that National has taken this long when it has presided over a doubling of the debt, when it has flip-flopped on its earlier criticisms of the bill, and when members of the select committee have refused even to write to the Minister on the issue of the primacy of the interests of the child. That all adds up to a missed opportunity.

There are some matters that are more operational in nature that I will briefly mention in this third reading contribution. The first is the issue of automatic deductions. Labour has raised concerns about the unintended consequences contained in provisions that strengthen the Inland Revenue Department’s ability to make automatic deductions without consent. I note that today, on the same day as the third reading of this bill, the same Minister has issued a press release suggesting that the Inland Revenue Department should be able to share, for the first time, personal and private taxpayer information with other Government agencies for the purpose of crime fighting. That, in a week—

💬 Metiria Turei: They will just email it.

They will just email it around the whole Government. And how long will it take for the first civil servant to press “broadcast send” and put people’s personal tax information in the public domain? If you have a problem with that, just send it to the Prime Minister and he will probably ring someone and ask them to broadcast it before he makes them, I do not know, the head of New Zealand On Air or the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau. That is how this “Shon-key” works: ring a mate, put them in a sensitive position, breach the public trust—and the members opposite are squirming. They are squirming because they know that that is a very serious breach of the public trust. That has got their blood flowing, has it not? What a mistake to have a third reading speech on the subject of personal, private tax information on the same day that the Government put out a press release calling for the broadcast of personal tax information. Dig your way out of that one, Mr Lotu-Iiga.

I think that not only this Parliament but certainly the people of New Zealand have heard enough from the past leader of the Labour Party, and certainly that sounded like a leadership speech, if I have ever heard one, Mr Cunliffe. It is a pleasure to actually speak on this, the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill. As the chair of the Social Services Committee that considered this bill, I want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister of Revenue—he talked about the long road of discovery for him in getting to this bill—the Hon Peter Dunne. I want to thank him for his constructive assistance as our committee deliberated on this bill. I also want to thank the many officials, the committee staff, the clerks, and also fellow committee members who considered this bill. I do not want to thank Mr Cunliffe, because he neither sat in on any of the submissions nor was part of the deliberations on this bill.

Mr Cunliffe talked about an old principle of jurisprudence. What was that old principle of jurisprudence? He said it was to take his marching orders from the United Nations. Well, we on this side of the House will not take our directions from Ms Clark in New York and from the United Nations. He might take those instructions, but we will not—oh!

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Points of order will be heard in silence.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Two points. One is that it is a longstanding Standing Order that it is inappropriate to suggest that members are taking orders from any personage or interest outside this House. Secondly, it feeds into the broader issue of misrepresentation under the Standing Orders.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first point is upheld. Members cannot be accused of taking instruction from outside this House, and that is clearly set out in Speakers’ rulings. The second point—well, members, I just ask for a little bit more courteousness across the House.

Thank you. He did mention the United Nations convention. I added one plus one to equal two, and I thought he was referring to his former boss. But, anyway, coming back to why this bill is important, the child support system—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Some members, when they have been corrected by your wise judgment, have the generosity and maturity to withdraw and apologise; others repeat the same but in different language. You may wish to decide which of those cases applies here.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: When a point of order has been dealt with, members should move on and not even refer to the point of order.

As I said, it is, was, and always has been a backstop for families, when parents are no longer living together and cannot support themselves, for an arrangement to be made for the support of their children. It is not about the United Nations. It is not about external parties. It is about what is going on in this country and between kids who clearly need support.

Child support was never intended, as the Minister said, to be the automatic default position, and nor should it be that. My strong preference in these arrangements is that when relationships, sadly, do break up, parents should be encouraged to make those arrangements in a private way for the maintenance of their children. And I equally recognise that that is not always going to be fair or feasible in a number of these cases. So it is therefore the aim of this system to ensure financial support is reasonable and reached on a voluntary basis. To do this efficiently and accurately in today’s context, it is important that the scheme be updated.

Like many in this House, I have had several of my constituents contact me about the inequity and the unfairness of the current system. They come to me in my electorate office—and the previous speaker will not know, because he neither lives in his electorate nor knows where his electorate office is in New Lynn—and I say that, in terms of doing this efficiently, child support payments should take into account a greater range of individual circumstances and capacities of both parents, which is more in line with modern practice. So it is important, as I said, that the formula be altered to reflect current, modern practices, as happens between couples in relationships. In the context of child support, it means that child support payments are collected and delivered for the benefit of those children whom they are intended for, and parents should not pass those financial responsibilities to maintain their children on to other members of society, as the previous member seemed to suggest.

We know that there are 210,000 children in families who are currently involved in the system. We know that the system is outdated. We know that there are current issues within the system. This new system, though, will not solve each problem; the Minister has clearly, clearly represented that and he stated it up front. But we all know, as well, and the previous member knows himself, that this system is better than the last system.

I just want to say that I support this bill. It obviously has a new formula, which bases child support payments on a wider recognition of shared care, the income of both parents, as well as an estimated average expenditure for raising children in New Zealand. Again, the previous member, Mr Cunliffe, said he did not know how we came to the formula. Well, I suggest he reads the bill first, that he turns up to select committee hearings when submitters turn up, and that he actually listens to some of his colleagues who might have an idea about what is going on in this bill. So what happens is people get behind in their payments. He suggested that the debt has exploded. We acknowledge that. We saw that in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We saw that people are dropping out of the system and not making their payments. But the changes in this bill are about encouraging and facilitating parents to make more timely payments of child support, and that is why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

First of all, before I begin, I just want to put on record that I think it was unfair and perhaps misleading of the chair of the Social Services Committee, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, to make those remarks, knowing full well that at the time this bill, the Child Support Amendment Bill, was discussed at the select committee Labour had a different revenue spokesperson from whom it has now, and that the spokesperson subbed in and contributed significantly to every debate and discussion on this bill. Now we have a different spokesperson. I could talk at great length about what happens in reshuffles in Government ranks, which Mr Lotu-Iiga might not want me to reflect on, because not everyone is served well in such reshuffles, but I will not. But I think it is unfair of the chair to try to claim that the member does not have the right to speak on a bill, when it is within their remit regardless of when they took it on.

I have to also point out that I was a member of the select committee that considered this bill, yet I would struggle to suggest to the House the origin of how we came to some parts of this formula, because even now I continue to question whether it is the right thing to do. You would not have heard that member, the chair, stand up and give the origin. You did not even hear him explain the formula. In fact, I am yet to hear any National Party member explain the child support formula in this House. The reason for that, and I will come back to this, is that it is extremely complicated.

Some of the members in this House did traverse the intricacies of the formula during the earlier parts of this debate. I was one of them, so I will not go through that again, but I will highlight that if it is that complicated, it has the potential to give rise to issues further down the track. Actually, just today I flagged on social media that this bill was going to be debated, and someone said to me: “Can you explain to me how the new formula will work?”. I pointed her to the first reading speeches; I am not sure that that was the right thing necessarily to do. But it does demonstrate something quite key.

What I can say is not included in this bill is the issue, despite Mr Lotu-Iiga talking about the fact that this was not a bill that was meant to be about preserving child welfare, that it is not unusual in international jurisdictions to embed basic principles around the paramountcy principle, the importance of child welfare, into any law that has some kind of jurisdiction over Family Court matters—and things like child support payments you could legitimately put under that umbrella. So it is not fair to paint this notion as fanciful. It is being used in other jurisdictions.

All that we asked, just to be clear, was that we put a specific provision in the bill that referred to the well-being of the child. In fact, even the Children’s Commissioner stated quite clearly, giving a suggestion that we add a new section 4(a) “to affirm the right of children to be maintained by their parents and the promotion of their on-going well-being and healthy development following parental separation” and a new section 4(l) “to require that in all decisions and actions made under the Act, the welfare and best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration”. That is the notion of the paramountcy principle. If some member on that side of the House would like to explain to me how that is going to completely undermine what a child support bill is intended to do, I would really like to hear that. For what purpose does it exist if it is not to ensure that the ongoing financial support and obligations and responsibilities are met by non-custodial parents? If that is not about the child, what is that about? The fact is that when we raised this in the select committee, we had advice given to us by those involved in the drafting that it could potentially undermine what the bill was trying to do, and that suggested to me that perhaps we had started from the wrong starting point. So that is a point that I think it is only fair that we make.

I want to traverse some of the other significant issues that were raised during the process of formulating the bill and its being in front of the select committee. One was ensuring payments are made. I would wager that everyone in this House wants to make sure that we encourage and assert that child support payments must be made by non-custodial parents, or those who have shared custody, if you will. It is an obligation that I do not think anyone here would dispute. If we can use the system to encourage and ensure that we remove the barriers to that obligation being met, then that is a good thing. That means that we had to consider whether or not reducing the backlog of penalty payments was the right thing to do. On this side of the House, we were firmly of the view that it was. Actually, these penalty payments were not going to the child; they were penalty payments incurred to the Crown. If they stood in the way of a child receiving future payments, then we should think about whether or not there were ways to strike the balance between fairness and ensuring an ongoing uptake of someone’s responsibilities. Judith Collins, it is fair to note, has not always been of that view. In fact, she has been quite strident in her view that we should not have any kind of write-off of back payments. It is good to see that the Government, though, has taken a more open mind on this over time.

But I am upset that what was not considered or even discussed, and a view was not even put forward by Government members, was just some response to what the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty has proposed, and that is around child support pass-on. We do not know what side of that argument the Government would have come down on, and I am not asserting here that it should have taken one position or the other. But I would have thought that it could be discussed at the time we were discussing child support and the general principle that—and many people will not be aware of this—where a parent who might have primary care responsibilities for a child is in receipt of Government support, for instance being on the DPB, they will not receive any form of child support, even if the non-custodial parent is paying that child support. It will be recouped by the Crown. The notion of pass-on is simply the idea that no longer do you have the Government standing in the middle taking in those payments, but instead those payments go directly to the child.

The Government may have a particular view on that, but we simply do not know, and yet when the Children’s Commissioner is standing out there and saying that there is merit to this, and there is merit to this because it encourages payment—it encourages parents, as instead of just saying “I’m not going to bother paying, because it’s just going to the Crown.”, they know that the only person who will miss out is the child—I would have liked to hear the Government’s view on that, no matter what it was. I think that would have been the time for the Government to express its view, particularly given the international evidence that exists.

When it comes to penalty payments, I am also disappointed that there was very little discussion and movement around the idea of to what degree we are pursuing payments when they are not made. In other jurisdictions you will often see that a Government will come in and make a payment itself and will then pursue the person in question who is meant to have made the payment so that no one misses out from the fact that the person has not shown responsibility. That is what happens in other countries, not in our own. But I have cases coming across my desk where, for instance, a non-custodial parent is living in Australia and has not been paying their child support, the Inland Revenue Department has not been able to track them and ensure they do, we find out that they are coming into New Zealand, and the Inland Revenue Department sits on its hands and does nothing. Why are we not pursuing that non-paying parent in the same way we would an unpaid fine at the border? Surely, not paying for the upkeep and the care of your own child should be pursued with as much rigour as, for instance, a fine would be by the Crown.

There are many other issues that I could have traversed. I hope my colleagues will pick up the complexity issue, which is borne out by the fact that there will be a 15 percent increase in the need for staff time spent on this issue. There will be a $91 million operating cost and a contingency of $28 million, and there is a fear that the Inland Revenue Department system might actually fall over under the weight of these changes, and that is something for everyone in this House to be concerned about. This is not about just child support; this is about our ability to administer our tax system in New Zealand.

But the one thing I want to finish on is the impact on women. The thresholds through this formula change where the primary caregiver has the amount they receive discounted starts as soon as the non-custodial parent picks up 28 percent of the care. That does not mean that that parent picks up 28 percent of the cost, that does not mean that they have 28 percent of their life impacted in terms of their ability to take on full-time employment, and yet that is the point at which their child support starts to decrease. This will impact the most on women. We felt like their voice was not heard nearly strongly enough, and I feel disappointed and let down by the amount we heard from the Minister of Women’s Affairs on this issue. Because of the children and because of the unfair impact, we believe, on women, Labour does not support this bill.

Similarly to my colleague Jacinda Ardern from the Labour Party, the Greens are very concerned about this legislation, the Child Support Amendment Bill, and we will continue to oppose it. Our view, as has been said, is that if this legislation is supposed to be about the well-being of children—

💬 Mike Sabin: No, it’s not.

—and their future care, well, then, why not have in the legislation that that is the paramount principle? But I guess National is just confirming that, actually, it is not. This legislation is not about children, at all. It is about tax take and it is about punishment. So we had Peter Dunne here earlier today thumping the table, declaring that the most important thing, in his view, was the fact that parents should put their children first, above all else, and yet his colleagues in the National Party are saying: “Nah, it’s not about kids at all, actually. It’s got nothing to do with them.” No wonder this legislation is such a mess. No wonder the legislation is such a mess, where a significant set of provisions about the financial care that impacts not just on the financial relationship between parents concerning their children but also, actually, on the familial relationships of parents and their children is so confused, so complex, and, in large part, irrational. We think there have been some changes around the edges that we agree with, but it is so complex now, and it misses the point so badly about the needs of children and families, that we simply cannot support it.

I do wonder, actually—and I will not be the only parent in this House who has had some dealings with the child support system in some form. And I really do appreciate the comments made by Jacinda Ardern about women on the DPB, for example, for whom these relationships are very complex and very much about how to maintain some kind of financial stability for their children and effective relationships for their children when they are in a situation of break-up. They are a sole parent caring for their kids, having to manage, often, a tricky relationship or a tricky break-up with a partner and in the financial circumstances that are involved. Of course, you know, for all that Peter Dunne said that this legislation is about providing financially for the children—not that National agrees—in fact, for a significant proportion of families who are in the most need of the greatest financial support, they benefit nothing from this legislation, because nothing in this legislation gives them the money. So the money goes from the other parent to the State, and the State, in its largesse, as we heard earlier today, provides a benefit to care for these kids, but certainly not enough money to care for these kids well, and it poses absolutely grotesque obligations on that family, to make it even more difficult for them to have financial stability.

I do not know whether this is still the case, but it certainly was in my time, many decades ago now, it seems—actually, it is, in truth, decades ago. When I was on the domestic purposes benefit, the requirement was that if you did not name, or could not name, the father of your child and you were seeking a domestic purposes benefit, you would take a financial hit. You would lose $20 a week out of your benefit, because there would be nobody for the State to try to get more money from through the child support system. If that still occurs now—and I am not sure whether it does; I assume it does, because there has been no indication of any change—and it certainly did then, I knew of women who would take that financial hit every week. The poorest women in this country would take that financial hit, because for them the most important thing was their children. They wanted their kids to have a good relationship with their father and with their father’s family. They wanted their kids to have an easy relationship, where the other parent could come and they could meet and the child could go for visits, and go for visits with the family, and money was not an issue between them. This was especially the case when both parents were very poor, where either both of them were on a benefit or one of them—the father, in particular—was working on a very low income where money was an issue, and was always going to be an issue.

So this legislation—does that do anything? Does this help those women who are the most vulnerable and those kids who are in the least financially stable situation? No. It does not do anything, because the one major recommendation that came from the Children’s Commissioner as to how this legislation could, and should, be amended to increase the amount of repayments from non-custodial parents and to improve the lives of the children who need it most has been ignored. And that is the pass-on, so that the State guarantees that the kids will benefit. But that is why National does not, and will not, put children at the heart of this legislation. That is why it will not put the well-being of children as a core principle of this legislation. It is because it does not want to have to make sure that those kids do OK. It washes its hands of the kids who need it the most, and that is clearly laid out in this legislation, which fails those children. We oppose this bill. Thank you.

I would like to start out by saying that the care and welfare of children is implicit in this bill, the Child Support Amendment Bill. This bill is not about caring for children or about how parents should be caring for their children; it is about the administrative process of how child support is collected. This child support scheme is a backup arrangement where parents fail to reach an agreement over the financial support of their children. The child support scheme is not the default position that it has become in many, many cases.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before the dinner break I was actually saying that this child support scheme is a backup arrangement for when parents fail to reach an agreement over the financial support of their children. This Child Support Amendment Bill will provide for fairer assessment calculations of child support payments that take into account a wider range of individual circumstances.

The comprehensive new child support formula will better reflect many of the social and legal changes that have occurred since the introduction of the current scheme. There will be more emphasis placed on separated parents sharing the care and financial responsibility for their children and a wider recognition of the care of children, because both parents are often working. I think it is unfair to assume that only one parent is solely in charge. As Metiria Turei tried to point out earlier, she seemed to think that it is only women who are, in fact, the carers of children. Sometimes you will actually find that in modern society it is the fathers who stay home to look after the children, and, in fact, it is the mothers who end up becoming the liable parent.

The incomes of both parents need to be taken into consideration. This bill will do that. Both parents’ incomes less a living allowance for each parent will be introduced in the formula, with costs of raising children being apportioned according to each parent’s share of the total net income.

The child support formula will use a new scale of costs expressed as income percentages, providing a more equitable system of financial support with regard to the expense of raising children after allowing for likely tax credits. These percentages will vary with the number of children and the age of children, with the percentage being higher for children over 12 years of age. Costs seem to rise dramatically with teenagers. Those of us who have teenage children will recognise the fact that they end up costing us a lot of money.

It also takes into account that non-parent carers may be eligible to receive a proportion of a child support payment if they provide at least 28 percent of the ongoing daily care of a child. Sometimes that is, in fact, the case for a lot of parents who tend to work and where there are no persons to actually look after their children at home. It is often upon the grandparents or maybe a family member to actually take on the responsibility of raising children. This is a great bill. I commend it to the House.

I often wondered what Pope John XXIII was thinking when he said: “It is easier for a father to have children than children to have a real father.” One can only assume that perhaps he would have heard a lot of confessions by that time.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Ha!

I am glad you enjoyed that, Tim Macindoe. The Child Support Amendment Bill has reached its third and final reading. New Zealand First is happy to support the bill in its final reading. It is evidence that our current and outdated scheme for child support payments needs to be revamped, and it paves the way for a new system—a system that is more reflective and representative of how families live in today’s world. Family life is changing, and so too are our circumstances. More and more mothers are attaining paid work, and there is more emphasis on shared care.

Getting jobs in recent years has been extremely difficult under the National Government, mind you. It has made too many promises and never delivered on any of them, I should say.

💬 Melissa Lee: Oh, goodness me!

💬 Tim Macindoe: Oh, come on. You know that’s not true.

Well, we are still waiting for the 170,000 jobs, Tim Macindoe and Melissa Lee. More businesses continue to close down due to National’s poor economic performance. Consistently poor performance is not just primarily a matter of weakness, stupidity, or ignorance, but also a matter of miscasting. In other words, National has failed to lead New Zealand in the last 4½ years, and, more important, in terms of 2014 and beyond. We get to wonder what is going to happen.

Child support payments symbolise each parent’s moral obligation to their child or children. I am somewhat disappointed. I was hoping that the 28 percent shared-care threshold was going to be amended to reflect the recommendation I put forward for it to be increased to 35 percent. New Zealand First is disappointed that that was not followed through. Shared care of a child or children is even more important, because it enables the child or children to maintain a close relationship with both parents. This will ensure that children grow up with more stability and consistency in their homes. Nothing that we do for children is ever wasted—nothing. It also allows families to try to make things work, despite their circumstances.

The new formula is sensitive to a variety of circumstances, but there are also issues over its complexity, which may cause further confusion. It is our view that these complexities are outweighed by its ability to recognise different living arrangements, and also the formula emphasises shared care. This not only makes it fair but also is justice for parents who do look after their children and make do with whatever they have. It is about bridging loopholes that have fostered more problems than solutions. This bill will hopefully remedy some of those problems—only time will tell. Given Minister Dunne’s flip-flop track record, it gives no assurance to the people of New Zealand.

As I mentioned in my second reading speech on this bill, children who are in the care of their grandparents should also be given a fair go—should be given a fair go. Grandparents ought to be recognised, as they provide care while parents are away for certain periods of time or because they have to work two jobs just to make ends meet. The grandparents’ role in situations like this provides added value to the stability and security of New Zealand children or parents whose circumstances force them to seek grandparent support. After all—after all—children are made readers on the laps of their parents and grandparents. If there are situations like this—and undoubtedly there will be—grandparents and other family members who are the primary caregivers for children ought to be seriously considered and compensated for the care they provide. I also mentioned that this bill will close up some of the loopholes that have been problematic since the implementation of our current child support system. Over the years family life has had to endure many social changes that have affected the way we live and work. In some ways, these changes have dictated to us what we can and cannot do.

It is our hope that because this bill aims to improve the treatment of families, making it more fair, it will lessen the burden of chasing child support payments or worrying about payments being made. Our outdated scheme and formula have not been able to keep up, and it should come as no surprise that they are futile in fulfilling their purpose. We are, however, concerned that the Minister responsible for the bill, the Minister of Revenue, did not do his homework in making sure that the current Inland Revenue Department computer system would cope with these changes. Whatever happened to proper preparation preventing poor performance? We are now confronted with a situation where this bill will be delayed in its implementation in order to allow for the computer system to be brought up to basic standards. Minister Dunne’s lack of planning does not constitute just inconvenience on fathers and mothers out there who deserve better. The cost of living is rising, and so too are the costs of raising children—[Interruption] I cannot hear you properly, Mike Sabin. If you want to say something, speak up—perhaps say it properly.

💬 Mike Sabin: I can certainly hear that member. I can hear that member loud and clear, thank you.

I can hear you now. Something I can say to you, Mike, is that you used to be about doing something; now it is about being someone, is it not? It is only fair that child support payments reflect the amount of shared care each parent or caregiver has for the child or children, so that they are receiving financial assistance that will ensure the child or children are well looked after. The priority in this bill should be for the welfare of the child or children involved—[Interruption] I say to Catherine Delahunty, seeing that I am the one who is actually speaking at the moment, that the fact that this bill stands before us today in its third and final reading should open the eyes of National MPs to the fact that it is the children who lose out at the end of the day. It is the children who will be affected, regardless of the decisions this National Government makes. These are the same children whom we will be protecting from any harm or associated risks that might affect their education, well-being, and upbringing.

Nelson Mandela said: “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.” Our children will one day be decision makers. It is therefore our duty to ensure that our children have the best possible start in life. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that New Zealand tamariki or whānau or children are not confronted with issues or problems that come through no fault of their own—especially those people from the electorate of Mike Sabin. If implementing the Child Support Amendment Bill improves people’s circumstances and is perceived to be fairer and just, then we as parliamentarians are doing right by the future generations of children. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.

I happily rise to support the Child Support Amendment Bill, because of the considerable thought that has gone into this piece of legislation. Of course, when the first piece of legislation was passed those many years ago, the intent was clear. It was to ensure that children were raised in homes where they were encouraged to receive the benefit of the financial and social input of both parents. So although the current child support scheme provided a relatively straightforward way of ensuring that that happened, particularly in the way of calculating the support that the absentee parent, if you like, had to give financially—and when I say “absentee”, I do not mean that they were not in the child’s life, of course. What I mean is that they were not the caregiver with whom the child spent most of their time. The liability, I guess, of that parent was worked out and it was fairly straightforward.

Of course, the primary assumption back then was that the paying parent was the income earner and the recipient parent was the main care provider. But, of course, the way that parents raise their children these days in situations where a marriage or a relationship might have split up is quite, quite different. There are probably two major changes. First of all, more parents are in work, and usually both are in work, whereas back in 1992, when this was first legislated for, one of the parents might have been the key money winner, if you like. The second major change is that more often than not both parents now are involved in, if you like, day-to-day or week-to-week parenting. So you no longer get that sort of split, which was often along gender lines, where you had the main income earner not necessarily being the main caregiver, and the main caregiver not necessarily being the main income earner. That is what happened historically.

This initiative is to deal with a recognition that times have changed, that more parents are in work—often both parents—and that most parents are involved in their children’s lives, whether that parent is the chief caregiver or not. That is why in the new formula for child support payments we have, essentially, three changes. One is a wider recognition of shared care. That is why we have made sure that there is an opportunity there concerning expenditure for raising children. It is recognised there that when the level of care of one parent reaches 28 percent, it is actually significant, and it is marked in legislation. Previously it was only from 40 percent that it was recognised. Traditionally, of course, you might perhaps get a child staying with one parent 100 percent of the time or, in situations that are negotiated and have worked really well, 50 percent of the time—50-50. But now where 28 percent of the child’s time is spent with the parent who is not the chief caregiver—where that parent spends that amount of time with the child—that is recognised.

The total income of both parents is recognised now, and the provision of expenditure on children has been updated. That recognises the number of children who are involved and also their age, because, of course, costs change. Anyone who has been involved in raising teenagers from when they were little, or who has observed that in their wider family, will recognise that the costs of raising young children compared with those of raising teenagers are quite different.

I commend this bill to the House. I am pleased, and I look forward to it being passed this evening, because it does update what were good intentions in 1992—they still are today—and, of course, it brings things up to the modern era. I support this bill.

This is my final call on this bill, the Child Support Amendment Bill. It has been a long journey. We have debated this in the House, in the Social Services Committee, back in the House for the second reading, and through the Committee stage, and now we have the third reading. What we on this side of the House have expressed is disappointment about how this bill has turned out. I have heard the arguments of members opposite on this third reading, which are similar to the arguments they have made in all of the other stages.

There is a fundamental difference that we have with the way in which the Government has gone about this particular bill. Any legislation ought to have certain principles that guide it. This is the Child Support Amendment Bill, and therefore the principles that guide it ought to be around children. We ought at least to have taken the opportunity in this bill to design a system that actually does put the interests of the children centre stage and then to look at how it pans out.

The disappointment that we have is that that is something that did not happen. In comment after comment tonight from Government members they have, indeed, said: “Well, that was not the purpose of the bill.” That particular explanation falls very short. The purpose of the bill is child support. I guess the most objectionable comment tonight was from the chair of the Social Services Committee, when he said that the bill was not going to be beholden to any United Nations—and what he meant was any United Nations convention around the rights of children. So it was not going to be beholden to any of that; it was going to be what was good for us here in New Zealand right now.

I think the chair of the Social Services Committee actually misses a point there, because I am sure he would not argue that New Zealand should abandon all of the conventions to which it has been a signatory, because if we did, that would be untenable. We would become a pariah in the Western World. Nobody would want to do that, but Sam Lotu-Iiga was actually suggesting something like that. I certainly found that objectionable—objectionable more from the point of view that he, as chair of the Social Services Committee, did not express an intense and deep understanding of the notion of building a policy platform that places children right at the centre of it.

I know that other members opposite have also said: “But this is a technical bill; it doesn’t do that.” But it ought to have done that. There has been no substantive rebuttal from members opposite to that argument, although it is a very powerful argument. The best interests of the children should have been placed right at the centre of this consideration.

We on this side of the House are not alone in taking that view as strongly as we do. Many reputable submitters advised of the importance of including a provision in the bill that stated very clearly that the interests of the children would be the central guiding principle. Those who submitted on this point were significant organisations. The Children’s Commissioner submitted a very thoughtful and detailed submission. The Human Rights Commission, the New Zealand Law Society, the Auckland Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children, the Child Poverty Action Group, and the Dunedin Community Law Centre were just some organisations that actually came and said that here was an opportunity to take that principle and put it centre stage.

So the theme was consistent, and the advocacy was powerful, yet it was simply disregarded because here was a bill that was seen as an Inland Revenue Department - type bill, because that is where the child support system is based, and, therefore, it was just the formula that needed to be made right. It was a mistake that that happened. The Government flatly rejected the advice of those eminent organisations. I do wonder what this bill would have looked like if we actually did put the interests of children centre stage, and really did get the best advice we could from around the country, from around our experts. I wonder whether we would have a 21st century piece of legislation for this important aspect of our lives and the lives of our children. The Government was not interested, and it proceeded with what it describes, as I said, as a technical piece of legislation, and that view is reflected in the current manifestation of the bill. So the bill is disappointing for that reason.

It would be useful for members opposite to realise that every piece of legislation is guided by a set of principles and those principles ought to be articulated. We do have a lot of advice on what those principles are. These are well-established principles in terms of philosophy and ethics as well as good science. If the principles were based on the needs of children, putting their interests first, then the consideration of their financial interests would have been quite different. But what we have here is just a consideration of financial interests—who pays and how much. Parenting is more than just that. Parenting is about how parents do participate far more palpably and powerfully in the lives of their children. So this bill, then, is reductionist. It has reduced a complex set of relationships between parents who are separated, the needs of their children, and who pays to just the question of dollars and percentage of care.

This approach inevitably has unintended consequences for those who have the primary responsibility for the care of our children. For example, there will be a loss of income for the primary caregiver. If 28 percent is 2 nights out of 7 and, therefore, the income you get is reduced accordingly, the needs of the parents do not reduce but the amount of money does. Here there is some attempt—and I recognise it—to balance the cost to one parent of having a child 2 days a week and the other parent having it 5 days a week. But, clearly, those of us who have been parents, those of us who have been around parents, and others who have been around children and parents know what it takes to look after children—having full-time responsibility for them even if they go away for 2 nights, and the costs do not come down proportionately. So there will be unintended consequences in that particular area. The focus on percentages can easily be gamed, particularly by the contributing partner, and if it is gamed, then its effect will be quite negative.

The second point I want to make is that we have had lots of comments in this Parliament and elsewhere about the scourge of child poverty in our country—270,000 children live in poverty. That is immoral, it is untenable, it is unethical, and it is almost criminal that we allow children to live in poverty. Quite a number of those are children of sole parents, who are surviving on contributions from a partner through the child support system. So here was another opportunity.

If children were placed at the centre, then at least there would have been a far more robust discussion about how the child support system could be used to address poverty in that segment of our population who live on limited income. In fact what we have possibly done is make life more miserable for parents on very limited income and living on the breadline or in poverty.

It actually makes it worse, because the provision that was suggested to us by eminent organisations, again, was the pass-on mechanism, which other countries are using as well. We know that the pass-on mechanism does actually encourage parents to meet their obligations to contribute. Yet there was no interest throughout the stages of this bill in looking at that provision seriously. It was simply put aside. We could get no traction in the select committee from the Government members on that.

So I think here, then, was another lost opportunity, and this is what happens when we do not develop strong principles—well-argued principles—and operate on that basis. This could have been a cross-Parliament approach to addressing this problem, because we ought not to have as many differences as we do. Tonight we will debate other bills as well that reflect that kind of difference of opinion. So it is for those reasons that we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

I am very pleased to take a call in support of this bill, the Child Support Amendment Bill. It has been a very, very difficult piece of legislation, because what we are dealing with here is a very, very complex set of circumstances, which no two parents of children share alike.

But before I continue, I want to just touch on a couple of points and concerns that I have, coming from the Green Party today. We have heard very much about children being at the centre of the legislation from both Opposition parties—Labour and the Greens. I will come back to that. I am troubled when I hear that Metiria Turei on Native Affairs on television this Monday talked about cannabis in the sense that it was some form of legitimate income supplement for families in rural areas—a supplement to look after their whānau, to support the interests of their children—and that, in fact, some actually showed some entrepreneurial skills in doing so. How can that member and that party come into this House and seriously stand on the moral high ground—

💬 Simon O’Connor: Which party?

—the Green Party—that they seem to think they should occupy and talk about the best interests of children when they will advocate growing cannabis, and, I assume, using cannabis, as a good way to support their families and their children? I would submit that that is just absurd, it flies in the face of their arguments, and I think they should be dismissed entirely. It does not surprise me that they are not supporting this bill, but there is nothing new in that. I think that that is a fair reflection that this is actually a good bill—that they are not supporting it.

Coming back to the point about children being at the centre of this legislation, it is important to note that this legislation exists solely because of the parents of children who cannot make their own financial arrangements—those who cannot arrive at a position where they can support their children. I want to make the point that it does not mean that those children are vulnerable. In many cases the incomes will be of a significant order. It is not about vulnerable children. It is not a welfare bill. It is about trying to ensure that there is an appropriate administrative formula to make financial arrangements for those children in the absence of their parents being able to do it. So this is not about welfare and vulnerable children. Sure, under this equation there may be some children who are vulnerable, but they are being looked after in other ways. First and foremost, this is about their parents not being able to agree.

So when we come to the formula—and much has been made about that—how do we get that formula right? Well, I want to echo the comments of the Minister of Revenue, Minister Dunne, when he said that we cannot look to have a more inclusive formula in terms of circumstance without having a formula that is more complex. The two do not work. They are mutually exclusive. If we want a formula that is more reflective of the diversity of different arrangements, it is inherent that that formula will become more complex. But it is not like people will have to sit down and work that out on their calculator; that is taken care of for them. I think it is very, very important to point out that it is about getting that balance right. I do not think that any member can come to this House and say “Well, the way it was is as good as it gets.”, because, quite simply, it was not.

The point about the formula, I think it is very important to note, is that what we are also doing here, aside from that trade-off on the formula, is ensuring that it is more reflective of life circumstances, which are quite different from when this law was first introduced. The formula is far more equitable and takes into account shared-care arrangements, which are far more commonplace now. That is obviously something that we should be encouraging, notwithstanding the fact that there are some 210,000 children who are subject to this. That is far too high. But the 28 percent threshold versus the 40 percent threshold is, I think, a good move, and I think that taking into account the financial circumstances of both parents is more equitable. I also think that when we look at the expenditure of raising a child that is also very important, and it is covered off in this bill very well.

In closing, I just want to echo the comments of Minister Dunne when he said that first and foremost it is the responsibility of parents to try to get this right. Do not use child support as a default setting. Let us try to support those families to get it right in the first place. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

Split call? Sue Moroney—5 minutes.

I rise to speak to the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill. It is with sadness that I echo what speakers on this side of the House have said, by and large—that Labour is, sadly, in the position of finding itself unable to support this bill. Despite the fact that we have got to the third reading and the issues have been well debated, there has been no ability for the National Government to be able to think about the concept of putting children at the centre of its policy development. This bill is yet another example of its inability to do that, despite the fact that the bill is called the Child Support Amendment Bill, not the “Parent Support Amendment Bill”.

This bill is supposed to be about ensuring that children whose parents have split up have financial support and the ability to participate in life, as any other child should be able to. That is what should be at the centre of this legislation, but the National Government has got itself into the trap of thinking that this is actually all about the parents. It has actually addressed this issue by making the mistake of climbing into the battleground between the parents, and that is precisely what this legislation ought not to do. It ought not to take sides with regard to the parental responsibility in this regard.

This legislation should be in the interests solely of the children, and the fact that the Government members on the Social Services Committee quite specifically voted against recording that as being an object of this piece of legislation, I think, speaks volumes. But it is not just what the objects of this bill say, or, more important, what they do not say. It is also played out in the detail of this bill.

I want to talk specifically about the implications for women, not because this bill is about women but because the majority of children who should be at the centre of this legislation are, in fact, in households that are headed up by women and women alone. Therefore, the implications for, and the effects on, women are the effects on children when it comes to this bill, because far and away the majority of children rely on a household led by a woman to actually fulfil their financial needs.

So what do we find the implications for women to be? Well, this legislation does have significant implications for those women, because on average women earn less than men and are more likely to be primary caregivers. One of the major things that this bill does is reapportion the financial situation depending on whether there is a shared-care arrangement, and it lowers the threshold for what can be deemed a shared-care arrangement. So all that is required now is for the non-custodial parent, who mainly is the male in the exercise, to have the children for the weekend and then they can actually get a financial benefit from that. That means that the households where women are leading—where they are looking after the child and paying most of the costs for most of the time—actually lose out. They actually end up with less available finance to support that child.

This legislation was an opportunity to get it right. It was a review that was needed because things have changed since this legislation was first brought in, and it did need review, but, sadly, the Government has got it so wrong. It is penalising women and, in turn, it is penalising the children for whom they are the primary caregivers and custodial parents, and that is not in the best interests of the children.

It is with a heavy heart that I rise today to speak to this inaccurately named Child Support Amendment Bill, because I believe it is a rough day for women and children in this country as this Government seeks to pass two bills—namely, this Child Support Amendment Bill and the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill—into law. Both of these pieces of legislation will reduce women’s economic and social independence, and, as a consequence, the security of children in this country.

The most recent estimates are that around one in two mothers have spent some time as sole parents by the time they reach the age of 50, and that a third of children have lived with a sole mother for some time by the time they are 17. According to the Families Commission’s research, we know that the amount many receiving parents receive, the majority of whom are women, is considered to be too little to meet the needs of their children. In 2009, 90 percent of sole parent families had incomes below the median household income for all households, with or without children. And we know that women in our country are earning a lot less than men. Women’s average weekly pay is $879 and men’s average weekly pay is $1,058. It is a gender pay gap of around 17 percent and we know that on an annual basis it is a much bigger gap. Research just last week by Statistics New Zealand showed that women are still doing most of the parenting in this country, whether it be in or out of relationships. This bill will result in a disproportionate reduction in entitlements under the child support scheme for female sole parents and also some male sole parents. Almost 30,000 female parents receiving child support could experience a reduction in their monthly child support receipts—30,000 families could experience a reduction in income. In one worked example that we were given, a sole parent with two children who has the other parent spending 2 nights a week with the children could have their annual child support entitlement reduced by 36 percent, or more than $3,000 a year. This is significant.

These bills being introduced today will further exacerbate child poverty and the feminisation of poverty in this country. And I challenge anyone in this House to tell me that a sole mother’s economic and social status has nothing to do with a woman’s ability to leave a violent relationship. A women’s safety survey in this country, conducted in 1996, found that 70 percent—70 percent—of separated women had experienced some form of domestic violence. That is what we are dealing with in this legislation—the safety of women and children in this country and their ability to leave violent relationships. Far too many New Zealand fathers—and this is backed up by evidence—have a long history of not paying child support, paying too little, and paying erratically. This bill seems to support, in part at least, the view that child support should be less onerous because liable parents resent paying it. I know of an example of a woman in Wellington who traded sex with a violent ex-partner just to be able to get her child support payments. That is not a rarity in this country, because that is what we are dealing with in the imbalance of power in these relationships. This bill will make leaving a violent relationship more difficult and will put more power in the hands of abusers.

This bill has been developed as if none of this reality was true, and it puts women’s and children’s lives at risk. And this is just 1 month after our Minister of Women’s Affairs committed New Zealand to “a comprehensive approach towards ending violence against women and girls” in this country. Yet here we are, just over 1 month later, eroding the protective factors inherent in two fundamental pieces of legislation to ensure women’s and children’s safety in this country. It is a disgrace.

I am honoured to take the last call in the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill tonight. I, firstly, want to say that when we talk about children and families, they are our children, our tamariki, our families, our whānau as well. We on this side of the House take seriously the roles and responsibility we have, so we are very conscious of the decisions that we make in this place, and particularly those about the Child Support Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Revenue, who over 6 years has worked hard to see this bill come to fruition.

Here, in the final speech on this bill, I want to touch on a couple of things that have been mentioned. There was a petition that was put forward by the Opposition members around changing the objects of the Child Support Act. Can I say this: if they actually read the objects, these clearly ensure that the paramountcy of care is still affirmed in this Act as well. In section (4), this is what it says: “The objects of this Act are—(a) to affirm the right of children to be maintained by their parents: (b) to affirm the obligation of parents to maintain their children:”. That petition was pure scaremongering. It was purely a way of trying to put some fancy idea in there. The intent of the Act is clear—to maintain at the heart of this Act the responsibility of those parents to care for their children.

The bill has been widely consulted on. We are saying that 2,300 people were consulted—online participants—and we heard over 112 submissions. We know that the heart of this bill is about families breaking up. In this sense, we want to ensure that the care and the support of our children who are vulnerable are at the heart of this bill. So I support this bill. This is a good bill. It will reach and meet these needs. No bill is ever perfect, but we believe this will meet the needs of our young, our children, and our whānau as well. I commend this bill to the House.