Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou te Whare. The Greens support this amendment bill but we are a little bit gutted that there wasn't the opportunity taken to amend what a few other submitters have spoken about which is primarily the core focus of this Act—that is that it talks about the parents but neglects the welfare of children. There's been a lot of discussion about that transactional nature and as this Act was actually passed in 1991 it's probably worth noting that I'm probably one of the only members in the House who was a child whose parents were having to act and operate under this very piece of legislation in their divorce and separation.Simplification is good and the reasons for that have been outlined as is of course the limitation on those retrospective reassessments which can expose substantive liability particularly for those who may be obliged to pay in lower socio-economic circumstances—especially when you take into account the requirement to pay potential interest. But I do however make note of the contribution made by Andrew Bayly that on the other end of town whilst it's really important that we have made those amendments to how income is accounted for particularly with regard to interest and dividends being included the ability to wiggle out of this by having that income come through by other means such as shareholder advances does still propose a number of fish-hooks to which I hope we begin to pick up and deal with as we move forward in further simplifying and making more equitable this piece of law.The Child Support Act 1991 as I just alluded to completely neglects—completely neglects—the concept of the welfare of the child. Importantly every other piece of legislation that is directly impacting on children includes that the welfare of children as one if its major goals. Instead this Act emphasises the responsibilities and obligations particularly of those non-custodial parents. It feels as though this framework is almost set up to enable or to be the legal manifestation of two parents in a room arguing about separation or divorce neglecting the will of their kid of the tamariki who are in that room—the things that they want and that they care about. I just hope again that as we talk about the development of law like this in the House in future like was put forward in the submission from the Children's Commissioner we think about centring the voice of children moving forward.With regard to the point that I made at the start of this contribution the real lost opportunity here alongside centring children's voices is the opportunity to actually address systematic inequality. So I refer to the Children's Commissioner's submission which made it abundant that what happens in this amendment bill does not actually align with the stated child poverty reduction aims of this Government both in last term and in this term. The way that it does this or rather doesn't do this most particularly is by not taking up the recommendation of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendation 27. That recommendation was Pass on all child support collected to receiving carers including for recipients of Unsupported Child's Benefit". This may not be immediately apparent to those of us who sit within this House and have the privilege of being pretty distant from the experience of receiving a benefit or welfare support in this country but I think it's really important to spell out how the system currently works for parents who are recipients who are on the benefit.Right now if you are on a benefit and you are receiving child support that child support is paid directly to the IRD. The IRD then holds that child support. If the child support is calculated as at an amount more than of the benefits that you are entitled to as a sole parent then only the difference over and above your entitlements ends up being paid out to you. The rest of that child support is used by the Ministry of Social Development to offset the costs of your benefit. That is a hangover from a time and place that I thought Aotearoa New Zealand had moved on from. It's an incredibly punitive approach to our welfare and benefit system. And while some may decry that this is about making sure that people are accountable or whatever else the fact of the matter is that it's children who miss out here. So if we're to centre those children's voices the need of children here then we would make sure that the full amount of that child support was passed on because those actions that are presently undertaken by the IRD as an intermediary actually exacerbate inequality. And that is outlined incredibly well by the submission of the Children's Commissioner who spoke to in particular the What Makes a Good Life? engagement from 2018. His submission quoting from a young person from Whangārei said "Sometimes you can't afford what you need. Can't afford experiences - camps and school trips education food - like if you have bad health because you can only afford the bad stuff you're never gonna get healthy." This is the kind of reality that we're grappling with here.Again it's that missed opportunity that the Greens are gutted we didn't remedy with the amendment bill as put forward in front of the Social Services and Community Committee. I note that those who were on that select committee have contributed saying as much. But I hope that by putting it on the record today we have an opportunity to address it moving forward. Because I'm sure as we all well know in this place when a spotlight is not shone on these issues we can continue dusting them under the carpet and pretending that they do not exist. The Greens support this amendment bill because of those important changes that are made but those changes are primarily administrative. We hope that moving forward there's the opportunity to address the substance which is growing inequality and inequity in Aotearoa New Zealand and how that particularly has massive detriment to the children in this country. Kia ora."