Woodhouse Michael; Parker DavidHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I do agree with the Hon Louise Upston that this part actually does require something of an explanation. The introduction to this talks about a small drafting error and I wonder if it's as small as the bill actually suggests. When I was the Minister of Revenue the thing that struck me the most about the punitive nature and cumulative nature of penalties and use of money interest for late payments was that in respect of child support payments that were in arrears it was often initially a very small amount of money that the person who owed the money had not paid often due to no fault of their own. It was usually discovered on a recalculation sometime after the payments were due and as a consequence of that I saw small debts grow to very large debts—sometimes $1000 $2000 which might not sound much to some but to those who were having to pay child support and for whom income was low that was a devastating impact on them and they often couldn't get out of it.So I have two questions for the Minister. The first is at section 134(2) of the Child Support Act as amended by clause 8 of the bill. If my reading of the Child Support Act is correct section 134(2) other than the heading is replaced basically by this new section 134(2). Only I've read it several times and I can't find a single word in this bill that's different from what's in the Child Support Act. So that's one question.The second question is in respect of section 134(3). What it's doing is replacing the words 27th" with "seventh" and effectively what we're saying is that certain penalties as I understand it accrue 27 days after the arrears commence. So my question is: is the intention to remedy an error where this was due to line up with other late payment penalties that came owed on the seventh day after the arrears were accrued and if that's the case did the Minister actually give thought to leaving the error unchanged? Because I think having a larger window between the accrual of the arrears and the accrual of the penalties is actually not a bad idea for these people. Now hopefully there's been a substantial reduction in the number of people who find themselves in arrears because one of the key benefits of the Business Transformation that the Minister refers to is to actually prevent this kind of underpayment happening in the first place. So a third leg of this might actually be: could the Minister give us an update about whether in fact now that the transformation is nearly complete—whether child support payment arrears have actually dropped as was predicted?So those are the three things: is there actually a change to section 134(2)? Did he give consideration to leaving what was apparently an error in section 134(3) alone? And thirdly have we seen a reduction in the amount of child support arears accruing?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I'll try and answer the first question first and if I haven't properly answered the member I'll take further advice from officials in respect of the other issues. But essentially the wrong date for section 134(2) to come into effect was included in the most recent version of this legislation. In order to make sense of clause 8 of the bill members have to read the commencement clause clause 2. Clause 2(2) says that "section 8(1) and (3)" but subsection (1) is the one if the member's looking at the same version that I am—there's grey scale about the new clause that's at clause 8(2). By virtue of clause 2(2) that comes into effect on 1 April 2021. Then that is effectively superseded on 1 April 2022 by the provisions that are at clause 8(2) in grey scale. It's a little bit confusing because of the reliance on the grey scale to make sense of it as I described it here. It's easier when you see it on the page. In clause 2(4) it says that "Sections 8(2) and 8(4) and 9(2)" come into effect on 1 April 2022 if not brought into effect earlier by Order in Council."