Ngaro Alfred: Child Support Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ngaro Alfred: Child Support Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in this Committee stage of the Child Support Amendment Bill. We have heard a lot of talk about the things that have gone wrong with this bill; we have not heard about the things that are going well with this bill. The previous speaker Jacinda Ardern talked about an aspect of the bill the injustice the inequity that almost seemed to be coming out and yet what the previous speaker did not talk about was the other aspects of support and care that are provided—for instance Working for Families and the accommodation supplement. It is a bit unfair to have a sense that this bill alone provides for all the needs of the children and of the family in particular. 
We know that when families break up it is a very complex and a very difficult situation. In this case we know that it is often traumatic and especially for the children. Financial instability following break-up is all too common and this is the area that we and the Minister of Revenue have been concerned about: ensuring that we provide the adequate support. All parties have actually agreed that the intent to reform the current scheme is important. In fact we know that there has been extensive consultation around this. There was the report in 2010. The Government released a discussion document and there has been extensive consultation: 2270 participants 834 receiving parents 753 paying parents and 685 other parties—30 percent who were included both pay and receive child support. 
I note those comments about the consultation because when we talked about the formula—and there has been a lot of talk about the formula and how it has been complex. The previous speaker Jacinda Ardern was quite correct that at times when we were going through the process at the Social Services Committee it was complex. There were whiteboards there were papers and we were trying to work out what this was. It is complex because we know that the circumstances for families are often very complex as well. But in the consultation that was had 69 percent of those who were surveyed online said this: “It should also be noted that [the] respondents to the online consultation undertaken thought that all the factors should be used to determine child support payments.” In other words the overwhelming majority said this: “We know it is difficult we know it is complex but we don’t want you to remove the opportunity for us to be recognised in our different circumstances.” We have heard people say that it is too complex it is too difficult. The consultation of submissions has clearly said that they know it is complex but they need those individual factors to be included as well. 
The New Zealand Law Society in fact talked about this stating that the “proposed child support formula is too complex and should be simplified …”. So this is the consideration to address those issues and “taking all those elements into account results in a more cohesive and comprehensive change to the formula that incorporates: estimated average expenditures for raising children; varying levels of care; and the income of both parents.” That is the basis of this formula. That is the basis of the formula that I think that most Kiwis most parents would understand and would appreciate in regard to addressing their circumstances and their situation as well. 
That said the proposed child support formula is more complex. I know that the honourable member Holly Walker talked about the fact that people will need accountants and they will need Inland Revenue Department specialists. Well that is not true because here is what has been acknowledged: “However parents or other affected parties will not be expected to undertake the calculations themselves. Inland Revenue’s systems will undertake all calculations required to determine liabilities and entitlements.” And they may talk over there about the $91 million and all the months of training but we have heard the wailing and the gnashing of teeth at times when we have been unprepared it seems and when we have not got the systems right. And here we are investing in the system investing in an approach to ensure that the liabilities and the entitlements for families and for children are in place. 
I want to also address this issue of paramountcy. Can I say this: the reason why this is important—that the entitlements will go back to the parents—is because these are the caregivers who will care for their children. Most Kiwis want the ability to care for their own children want the ability to make their own decisions hence this Government is not about taking away that control. Instead it wants to ensure that even they can be entitled. When we lowered the threshold for instance we have heard the fact that it is mainly women—and absolutely it is mainly women—who are the caregivers but in circumstances where men where fathers are taking their responsibilities should we not recognise that?