Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): This has been a very interesting discussion over the last hour and I do want to reflect upon it because while this bill does what to some may seem to be a small thing—put an average of $20 into the pockets of about 41000 solo mums; mostly mums some dads—it has really touched some nerves in certain parts of this House and it has set off a really interesting ideological debate. So in my words to you today I do want to go back over that debate because I think it's actually really important. But let's just start for those who have just tuned into Parliament TV—and there are of course thousands of them perhaps even 41550 such as will be raised to the tune of $20 a week or as my friend Anahila Kanongata'a put it 10 loaves of bread or as we might also say four to five packs of Pams butter or six 2-litre bottles of milk a week better off. So even if I do have those 41550 eager eager watchers of Parliament TV I think it's worth just letting them know what we're doing here. So this is the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. What it does is correct a discriminatory piece of legislation which allows us to not pass on child support to one group of people and one group of people only and that's solo parents who are of course—and I'm going to say this several times during this speech—mostly mums and I think that is relevant to the ideological debate going on here today.So child support for those who don't know it is the money that a non-majority caregiving parent pays to the parent who is doing the majority of care for a child to contribute to that child or children's upbringing. It depends on your income. It depends on which parent is earning what. In all cases except that one vital case where it is a solo parent—and I mentioned mostly mums—it is always passed on. So you could be a re-partnered parent looking after your children and your ex-partner will pass the—you can be on the benefit as a re-partnered caregiving parent and child support will still come to you. That's OK because you've established yourself in a nice nuclear family again so perhaps you're ticking some Victorian ideals there. But conversely if you have the temerity not to re-partner if you are trying to raise your children solo then for some reason up until now the State has seen fit to keep that extra money from you. Why? I have absolutely no idea. What we have heard from the other side is again a dearth of explanation of policy reasons as to why we should maintain this. What they have said—while they've given us their support and I am duly grateful for that what we've heard is that somehow this is wrong that somehow this is stopping parents taking responsibility for their children. It is also apparently going to encourage working solo parents—again I'm going to say it mostly mums—to throw out their working careers and throw themselves into the lap of luxury that is life on a solo parent benefit. It is fascinating that what seems to happen is that the idea is that it is only when you are a solo parent—which is to say can I hear it again mostly mums—you are suddenly in some way derelict in your duty if you cannot provide for your children. If you are on the other hand living up to the Victorian ideal and re-partnered that's fine. That's fine; you are not in moral danger of dropping the ball.So I really don't understand what the argument is from the other side as to why we should not amend this discriminatory piece of legislation which is going to—they have supported it but I don't understand why they consider it so difficult to do so. Why the moral scruples? I cannot understand it. On one hand they say it's taken us too long to do it. I don't understand why they didn't do it in their nine years or so or however many times they've been in power since 1990 when this was brought in. On the other hand they say we've rushed to judgment on this. I'm not sure about that either. It seems a little odd but there you go.But what I do want to say is that it has been a joy to stand here and listen to the people on this side of the House talk about real lived experience to have the courage to talk about their own experience as solo mums including as solo mums who are paying child support. I think it speaks to a Government who has compassion for ordinary people who are currently on the bones of their bottom and who can bring that experience in here and who retain compassion and the sense of humility to recognise that when they have been able to haul themselves up off the bones of their bottom they have not in fact done it by their own bootstraps; they have had State support constantly. They have social support. No mother is an island and that is how we have managed to get so many of them in here on this side of the House.I want to say thank you and extend my pride and admiration to my sisters here today who have stood and spoken about their own experiences in support of this bill. One particular experience does speak to one of the objections raised on the other side of the House to this bill. It was said: how can we possibly suggest that this bill will in any way incentivise more parents to pay as liable parents? This is an issue. We recently had to do some work on this in terms of the number of mainly dads who do not pay their child support. But the answer came quite simply and directly from my colleague here who stated that while she paid her child support when her mum was raising her children she would have been far happier and more enthusiastic had she known that money was going directly to her children. That is the reason that we say this bill will not only raise 41550 families by an average of six 2-litre bottles of milk five Pams butter pats or 10 loaves of bread and raise 14000 children out of poverty but it will also incentivise more parents to actually pick up their responsibility and pay as they should.Te pani me te rawakore—te pani me te rawakore. I want to thank my sister Soraya Peke-Mason who was earlier mentioning that whakataukī. She was gracious enough to attribute and to reference my use of it in the previous reading on this. I want to put the credit back where it should be. She and I were in the back of this House we were listening to this bill being discussed and she turned to me and she said Te pani me te rawakore." It is about the raising of those in need and compassion to those in need. That is what this Government is about. That is what we are seeing here and I am very very deeply proud.If we take the other position—I was very impressed by my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March earlier. He said that this is an ideological debate and it is. If we take the opposite position if we go back to saying that for some reason solo parents are less worthy of support than re-partnered parents—remembering always that most solo parents overwhelmingly we are talking about solo mums—then we are taking the position that somehow the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the children. This is the other point. Not only are we taking a highly judgmental position—a very traditionally judgmental position if I may say so against solo mums—but we are also taking a hugely Victorian Dickensian position against children. If we are not to pass on child support if we are to say "No parents should be penalised." then all we do is visit the sins of the father upon the children. I do not in any way see how that can be appropriate. If we are dealing as we are in my home town of Whangārei all across this country with a population who do have some entrenched poverty then it is our job to hold them up and to protect their children until those children and until they are restored to dignity and able to support themselves. Te pani me te rawakore. I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time."