Swarbrick Chlöe; Parker DavidCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Madam Speaker I'm rising to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 21 in my name and also to respond to some of the points made by Andrew Bayly. I am incredibly surprised to learn that he believes that his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) or my SOP replicates parts of the other particularly because the very purpose of our SOP is to address the inconsistencies in approach that is taken in delivering child support payments to beneficiary households. So I'm not sure if it will be visible to those on the screen—oh yeah I can see it is slightly—but this is a small diagram that I have drawn to inform members of the committee but also to ask the Minister if he would be interested in supporting this because of course he mentioned just now that the very reason that these changes are being brought before the House in this Child Support Amendment Bill is to actually rectify some places where the law at present is too harsh which I think by any other name is an effect of attempting to give a tangible sense to the kindness that this Government prides itself on. So when it comes to the SOP in my name it speaks to changes—particularly to clause 141—around payment to receiving carers. Here it would require and I quote All money received by the Commissioner by way of child support in respect of a qualifying child … shall be paid to the receiving carer in accordance with this Part." Importantly and I emphasised this during the second reading of this bill what presently happens if you are a custodial parent in a beneficiary household receiving some form of benefit or welfare support from the Government is that you are not allowed to be in a direct relationship when it comes to child support with the non-custodial parent. It is the IRD that sits in the middle of that relationship takes those child support payments from the non-custodial parent and will take away that amount which your benefit amounts to and only give you that small amount on top. This is the diagram that I've attempted to draw for my colleagues across the Chamber. It is the case right now that if you are receiving those child support payments the IRD is receiving those child support payments it is only that small amount which exists above the benefits as received from the Crown that will be passed on to that whānau to that household—ultimately compounding disadvantage. I believe that the Minister knows this because the Government commissioned this advice as the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's recommendation 27 that says to not enable this kind of practice to continue. On top of that the Social Services and Community Committee heard from the Children's Commissioner which asked for this very change as well. So I ask the Minister if he has considered supporting an SOP like this if it was considered in the drafting of this law and if it is considered moving forward—should he not choose to support it today—to ensure that Government policy and legislation moving forward aligns with the Government's own commission advice from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group to reduce child poverty in line with the Government's stated aims.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): If I could just first of all correct my earlier intervention the amendment to the legislation post introduction and first reading stripping out the subsequent penalties of 2 percent per month and 1 percent a month occurred at select committee so it's already in the revision-tracked version of the bill before us and it's not in the Supplementary Order Paper. I apologise to members to getting that wrong.In respect of Chlöe Swarbrick's point I understand it; indeed it has been Labour Party policy that we address and make more direct the pass through of liable parent contributions to beneficiary families. We're not doing it in this bill for Budget constraint reasons. So far in respect of the prioritisation of different ways in which we assist beneficiary families we've chosen to do that universally through increases to benefit levels in respect of low-income families; through increases to the minimum wage; the Best Start payment of course for families with younger children; and increases to the accommodation supplement. Although we would like to be able to devote the money to pass through child support payments against those other priorities we have not as yet and we haven't committed to doing so."