Ngaro Alfred: Child Support Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ngaro Alfred: Child Support Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8171. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 Kia orana Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Child Support Amendment Bill in its second reading. What a dramatic speech we have just had from the “Prince of Ponsonby” the member for the New Lynn electorate. I too have actually been out to New Lynn— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a well-known convention in the House that members must be addressed by their correct names. I would ask you to reflect upon that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the members can refer to members’ electorates as well. If the member is the member for New Lynn then he is quite— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know you are from South Auckland but Ponsonby is not in New Lynn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Oh of course. Yes the member is right. The member must refer either to the member’s name or to the electorate in which the member serves. 
ALFRED NGARO 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I do withdraw the comment that he is the “Prince of Ponsonby”. He is— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will be seated. The member has been here long enough now to know that he cannot refer back to a point of order. That is actually subverting the course and the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House. The member will not do that. 
ALFRED NGARO 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. The dramatic speech that we actually had just a moment ago—just in regard to the consultation and engaging with the concerns and the care of children. If that honourable member had actually been part of the Social Services Committee he would have known of the extensive consultation process that had taken place. There was a child support paper out in 2010 on which there were over 2300 submissions—over 2272 participants on online consultations and 112 written submissions. In fact there was a wide range of extensive engagement with the Minister for Social Development the Minister of Justice the Minister of Women’s Affairs the Families Commission and Treasury. So the comment that we as a Government have not consulted is not true at all. 
But this bill in its second reading—we know that people have strong views on child support—deals with the welfare of their children and it needs to be a scheme that fits with the realities of parenting and raising and supporting children today. Comments were made about the issues of children and their concerns. Are we meeting their needs? Well from a submitter—right from the horse’s mouth right from the people who have this concern—this is what they said: “The system needs to be fair. Families need to be encouraged to sort things out for themselves and I believe government agencies need to keep out of these situations as much as possible as they are often very complex. I think the first option should always be for a private arrangement to be made (with guidelines available) and the child support system should only fall-back if an agreement by the parties can’t be reached.” 
This process has been consultative. It has been extensive. We know the issues are very complex. There has been a number of submissions about the complexity. As a select committee we have considered these and taken these into account and we believe that the changes that have been made and that have been amended will adequately meet these needs. I commend this bill to the House.