Sabin Mike: Child Support Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sabin Mike: Child Support Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2037. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on this first reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill. Can I firstly just apologise. I have recently arrived in the House having come from a select committee so I apologise if I retraverse some of the material already spoken to. However as someone who has been a sole parent I am very pleased to support this bill and rather disappointed in the comments from the previous speaker Jan Logie on this bill.  
I just want to reflect on some of the important components that this bill is really set to address. That is really the question of what the endgame actually is here and that is ensuring that we have a fair child support system that reflects what New Zealand is now as opposed to the introduction of the scheme back in 1992. I think it is fair to say that parents and the relationships of parents when they have separated are quite different from what they were back then.  
It is sad to say that unfortunately many parents when separated do not fulfil their obligations with their children. I think to some extent it is a long bow to draw to suggest that the amount of child support that they are paying or the fact that they are paying is going to have any effect on how that money is ultimately used by the recipient. There are many other ways in which we need to be addressing this in my view. The Child Support Act I believe has become a very blunt instrument. The formula itself provides for disproportionate variances that negatively impact and in many ways actually create problems with the relationship shared by parents who are genuinely trying to do their best.  
This bill will address three important changes. I just want to reflect on those as the last speaker for this first reading. The formula provides a greater recognition for shared care. I certainly was in a position as a solo father where care of my children probably did break the mould to some extent in terms of a father being a primary caregiver and I think this is modern New Zealand. Although it is sad that many couples find themselves separated it is a reality that has to be confronted and dealt with in a fair and constructive manner.  
The formula also better recognises the amount of debt that has been amassed over some period of time—and previous speakers have alluded to it—of some $2 billion 60 percent of which really amounts to penalties. So you get an unintended consequence in many regards in my view which is that parents will turn and run because of the implications of the penalties and the wall that they find themselves up against. I think it is very important that there has to be some reality in how that is addressed.  
The formula which to me is at the heart of the changes in this bill is really looking at addressing the shared care and the threshold at which that shared arrangement can be taken into account. The threshold shifting from 40 percent to 28 percent provides a much fairer and more level playing field and encourages the involvement of both parents in the upkeep and the upbringing and both the financial but also the parental responsibilities that they must have. It also takes into account the incomes of both parents in this equation. I think that is very important. Rather than just simply the scale of the input or amounts paid by one parent simply reflected in their own income and their increasing income this gives again a much fairer representation of what it is to be a parent bringing up children in a separated household.  
The other third important part of the formula in my view is that the formula uses a new scale of costs which is more up to date with the costs of raising children and how those costs vary. It addresses the anomaly in my view that results from some parents whose income rises creating a situation where there is more disposable income and that is not necessarily reflected in the costs of bringing up that child.  
I commend this bill to the House. It really is about getting a fairer system that will benefit the interests of both parents and children. It is more reflective of New Zealand today and that can only mean better outcomes for both the parents in a challenging situation and their children. I encourage members to remember that endgame. It is about supporting better outcomes for these children. Thank you.