Brown Simeon; Parker DavidSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. Look there are a number of questions that we have still to raise on this side of the House. I do note that this bill has not been to a select committee so whilst some members on the opposite side may wish to just want to let this piece of legislation pass into the night it's important that the questions are asked because that is our job—to hold the Government to account and to ensure that there is openness and transparency.I do note that I don't believe the Minister answered my colleague Maureen Pugh's question in relation to the retrospectivity because there will potentially be a number of issues in relation to some people who may not see the social media campaign—which I'm sure the comms department at Inland Revenue can't wait to get stuck into. They might need to grow the comms department to do that one too. But regardless some people might not get their details up to date so may not get their payments. So the question was: can they later on maybe a couple of months after the payment system has finished come back to IRD and actually get a retrospective payment? I think that's a very important question because this is the Government of equality and equity and making sure that no one's left behind but are they prepared to leave some people left behind through the incompetence of their systems?The second question is in relation to the fact that this is a $350 payment. It's not a big payment. I think we can all agree $350 is not a lot of money. Even Glen Bennett the one-termer from New Plymouth—he said it's only going to be able to replace two of the tyres on his car; not even the full set—just two. He's looking forward to doing it. Maybe less wheelies on the weekend; more MP work—that way he might get re-elected but I doubt it.But the point I'd like to make is it's 350 bucks. It's not a big payment. IRD is going through this huge bureaucratic process to work out whether people are eligible etc. etc. They have to do that for every single payment. They have to check the eligibility of the particular person each month for three months to make sure that they are eligible for the payment. So I guess if they go into jail or they die unfortunately or whatever the situation is or they suddenly get a pay rise they go across—and obviously that's good news. But why is this just not one payment? Why did the Government come to the position where they wanted to have three payments? Is it just because they want nice comms for three months in a row? They're going to put out a press release on 1 August and say 117 bucks is coming your way" and then on 1 September "Another 117 bucks" and then on 1 October "Another 117 bucks". Because actually I think there's a real question why this is not just being done once to give people the $350 that this Government is saying is the great cure for costs of living the cure that they will be fixing this problem with. Why is it not just one payment to eligible people to ensure that not only they're able to get 350 bucks but they can then do what they want to do with the 350 bucks—if it's Glen Bennett get his two tyres on his car fixed and good luck to him; I don't think he's eligible though by the way—and then be able to actually make those decisions? But instead they get 117 then another 117 another 117 and of course—Simon O'Connor: How many red zeros can you buy?SIMEON BROWN: Well you can't even get a big red zero for 117 bucks—not even the whole $350. You need five grand—5000 bucks. I'll tell you what the average taxpayer in New Zealand Mr Wood—their tax is around $10000. That's two red zeros. So I just think for those taxpayers—Chris Bishop: It's the red zero metric.SIMEON BROWN: It is the red zero metric. Two red zeros—10 grand. That is a shame. He spent one New Zealander's entire tax they pay—entire tax they pay across an entire year—on two red zeros. Just disgusting. That's the wastage we see under this Government. But back to the point. Why are we not just having one payment? Not only does that give the people who are eligible—which is not including Glen Bennett as noted before—the ability to make those decisions but also it removes I'm sure a significant amount of bureaucracy and I'm sure that will save the taxpayer some money as well. I do ask the Minister on that particular point did the Government ask for advice around whether it should be one payment or three? Did the Inland Revenue provide advice as to whether it should be one or three and what might be more efficient for them? I do note that they have been scathing of the fact that they have effectively dropped this job on their department to do. Look I mean they're all good public servants. They will do the job. They will be stretched and they'll have to hire another 750 people. But the point I make here is: was there any advice requested as to whether actually one payment or three and what the impact and the cost benefit or the cost addition to doing three payments instead of one might be; if not why not and if so what would be the saving to the taxpayer if it was actually just one payment to actually make sure that there was some efficiency and to improve the whole system? Look I mean the Minister might get up and say you know "Well we don't want people getting that much money too quickly." I mean 350 bucks; it's not even two tyres on Glen Bennett's car. We're not talking about big money. So in the cost of living crisis I really just want the Minister to answer those questions because actually he should be advocating for efficiency in the State service efficiency in the Public Service but what we see is wastage emblematic mostly from Michael Wood and his two big red zeros.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): The member again made the assertion that these are 750 extra staff. Some of them will be reallocated within Inland Revenue. In respect of the year and the retrospectivity point as the member described it if eligibility is established by 31 March 2023 which as I explained is the date by which eligibility has to be established by the filing of a tax return for the year ended 31 March 2022—if they establish eligibility by 31 March 2023 but they don't provide a bank account we do allow them another year to do that and pay out later. But if they don't do it by 2024 we no longer carry forward the obligation to pay.In respect of the issue as to whether we considered one payment compared with three yes we did. One of the reasons why we chose three was that it better reflects people's actual circumstances if for example they move off a benefit."