Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green) Thank you Mr Chair. I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party and I guess I will primarily stick with some of this conversation around ending the section 192 deductions. The previous member Hon Nick Smith was saying Give us an example." Well actually we had I'm not sure how many submissions but submissions from a huge number of community organisations on the rewrite of the Social Security Act in 2016 exactly on that point of people telling us of the sanctions being applied on mothers for not naming the father and they didn't even know that that sanction was in place let alone know what the conditions were for them being able to appeal it. We had a lawyer sitting in front of us in tears—and the member Alfred Ngaro I'm sure remembers this—recounting her experience of having to hear those stories of women detailing the abuse they've experienced and the incest in their childhood that had resulted in their pregnancy and their child and the humiliation that she felt personally participating in that system to enable those women to access the exemptions on this sanction.This is what we're here to change—to actually trust those women that the decisions that they make are in the best interests of them and their families. On this side of the House we trust women to make the right decisions for themselves and their families. That is absolutely backed up by the evidence that we know from the conversation about how actually men have a role to play in their families and we need to incentivise that. Really I think the Minister Hon Tracey Martin put it really well about how of course we're all interested in healthy thriving families. We want policies that will work to support that.I would call out—what word shall I use that's parliamentary?—an inconsistency though from the National side of the House when I remember in this House participating in changes to child support laws that reduced penalties for non-paying parents. So those non-custodial parents who were not contributing to their families—that previous Government actually reduced the incentives as they would argue for those parents to contribute.Yet here they are: when it's an incentive supposedly that punishes women and children they're opposed to removing it. So they're not willing to punish the dads for not contributing but they are insistent on punishing the women and children who may not want to name the father—because they just don't trust women. It's the only thing I can take from that.I really want to reference a point that the Child Poverty Action Group made in their submission on this in the original legislation. They were saying that they believe non-custodial parents should make positive contributions to the lives of their children. However they were concerned that the emphasis on monetary support simply reduces children to the status of financial obligations. That's from their perspective on what this debate is about. They want us to look at what positive families look like and how we ensure that all of our families have enough to be able to nurture their children for their children to thrive. When there's a sanction in place that removes vital money from families below the poverty line already we know that we're going in the wrong direction.So the Green Party is very pleased—backed up by all of the research around how you support families to thrive—to fully support this particular aspect of the legislation."