Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Mr Chair and I also thank the Minister for Social Development for her detailed explanation of Part 2. She was attempting to set out as much information as possible to forestall any questions and that's noted and acknowledged. But there are some questions none the less that remain and other debating points and in fact there's a couple of questions that have arisen from her explanation that might be usefully thrashed out now—if you'll excuse the term. First to the amendments to the Child Support Act 1991 and the Minister has explained that that applies to where a decision is made about whether a formula assessment needs to be sought by a social security beneficiary. What the bill is seeking to do is to set up a regime whereby the Commissioner of Inland Revenue as an alternative to the chief executive of the department that administers the Social Security Act could also make such a decision effectively to waive that requirement. But my question to the Minister is: what happens if those two persons might disagree? I can imagine a scenario whereby a beneficiary might perhaps apply for a formula assessment to both bodies—that is to the IRD and have the commissioner take that into consideration and also to the relevant Government agency as determines the entitlements under the Social Security Act. It might be that those two people come to a different answer and so which of those would prevail in that circumstance would be my question to the Minister and her officials. There's a related question in relation to the IRD element whereby the commissioner under separate legislation has the ability to delegate decision making. So I wonder if it's intended that the commissioner might have the ability to delegate this particular decision or if it is perhaps intended by the Minister very much to be the commissioner herself or himself at the time as the case might be. A further and final question relating to clause 16 of this bill would be whether there was anyone else that was contemplated by the Minister and her officials to have such a power of waiving assessment. It might be for example that the administration of another Act is carried out by the chief executive of another Government department and it might be that that person is well placed to make a determination in relation to the particular beneficiary involved. So if she can give some guidance on that that will be helpful for our consideration and for the record as this bill goes through. I would also request the Minister's guidance in relation to the provisions that relate to amending the Veterans' Support Act. My colleague Simon O'Connor has noted that elsewhere in the House or in another part of the House's proceedings the Veterans' Support Act is being amended and I join him and others in the House no doubt in commending that. But in relation more particularly to Part 2 of this bill in new section 171 Abatement of veteran's pension" in clause 19 it is noted under subsection (2) that "Regulations made under section 265 may require different abatement" and the Minister herself has just a few minutes ago talked about this subsection in relation to abatement that "may" or "must" be made. But in fact the wording of the clause is quite clear. It's "may"—it's discretionary—and yet actually I think she might be right in her commentary more so than in the wording of the proposed legislation. I think it would be appropriate to make it mandatory that different abatement will apply when regulations are made under section 265—for example the veterans pension under sections 161 and 164. Different examples are given under new section 171(2) and they're phrased as examples—so it says "(for example different income tests abatement rates and abatement thresholds"—but if there are other bases on which a different abatement might be made then why would the legislation not simply spell those out? It is unclear to me. So if the Minister can advise whether that list is meant to be exhaustive or not and if it's not then explain why she wouldn't just simply set those out. But if it is intended to be exhaustive then perhaps simply pointing to the relevant section would actually be just as good a way to do it. It's the difference between "i.e." and "e.g."—between providing an exhaustive list and perhaps just giving particular instances that might apply. My other final question to the Minister if I can continue over the five-minute break—[Time expired]"