Sabin Mike: Child Support Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Child Support Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): 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 onNative Affairson 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 theirwhānau 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?MIKE SABIN: —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 210000 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.