Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Annual Rates Foreign Superannuation and Remedial Matters) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Taxation (Annual Rates Foreign Superannuation and Remedial Matters) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 20 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:16201. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): There are a couple of points I want to make about previous speakers. Without getting into any detail about the presence or absence of members it used to be a tradition in this House that Ministers when they were making the first speech on a bill would listen to the response. They would be in the House listening to the response in order to be briefed by their officials and to work with their colleagues on the team.I could tell that the Minister in charge of this bill Mr McClay was not listening or communicating with later speakers on the legislation. I think that is a pity. It is a loss. Ministers used to think that the House took some priority for their time and in fact there used to be a requirement for many more Government members to be present in order for there to be a quorum and I think it is a pity that that is not the case at the moment.I now want to turn to Paul Goldsmith—the person who sacrificed his seat so that the major ethical supporter of the National Party John Banks could come to this Parliament—and refer him to his comments by way of interjection and I think during the Committee stage that there is a lot of the detail in the bill that he as chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee did not understand. Well what is the point? What is the point of having a member who chairs the Finance and Expenditure Committee who gets extra funding for doing it who is meant to look after the process and who admits to this House that he did not focus enough on this very important legislation to the point of being able to understand it? That is sad.Maggie Barry: Tell us what you know about it. This is your chance.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I hear Maggie Barry going on. Clearly it is after lunch. Clearly it is after lunch because Maggie Barry has had some of her stimulation.Maggie Barry: FebFast Trevor—you should try it. You need it.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There she goes again—another clear example. The member got a bill out of the members’ ballot this morning and maybe she celebrated for 2 or 3 hours. She celebrated for 2 or 3 hours in the bar over lunch. She does not need that sort of win to behave in the way she is in the House today. She seems to do it without an excuse.But I do want to go back to the bill. In particular I want to focus on the child support part of the bill and say that any member who is worth their salt and who works in their electorate would have worked over the last year with constituents who have beenlooking forward—sometimes for many years—to the changes that were meant to occur and have been deferred.No one—no one—will ever describe the current system for child support as fair. It is not fair. It does not take enough into account it is much too narrow in its effect and it does not take into account properly both sides of the custodial relationship. There was an agreement within this Parliament for a new system whether it is totally satisfactory or not. Again I do not think anyone would agree with that. I think it would be in the eyes of the beholder and certainly people who are involved in custodial and support disputes will not agree that the new system is ideal. But the vast majority of reasonable people will agree that the new system is better and will be better than the one it is replacing. People have been looking forward to it.All of us I am sure have been sending out to our constituents copies of the changes that were to have occurred. I am feeling somewhat culpable because I relied on the word of the Government I relied on the decisions of this Parliament I shared them with my constituents and they made their financial planning decisions based on them. And what did we have by way of an awful grubby little Supplementary Order Paper? We had Todd McClay coming to the House and taking away from parents an entitlement that had been established by this Parliament. He took away from parents a decision of this Parliament without any consultation without going to a select committee and without even an apology—without even an apology—to those parents who have increased their mortgages those parents who had made schooling arrangements those parents who let their kids join clubs and those parents who let their kids get involved in sports that were slightly more expensive than what they could normally afford.Parents made a lot of spending decisions for themselves and for their children. Some of them had bought a car and arranged to pay it off using the money that was coming. Some of them did an extension in order to have an extra bedroom so that teenagers of different genders could have their own rooms. Houses were extended. Some people shifted houses to places with higher rent. And now Todd McClay has come into the House and said: “Oh sorry the money that we agreed you would have you are now not allowed to get for 2 more years. And by the way it will not be backdated.” Which member opposite says that that is just and fair? Not one. There is not a single member opposite who is prepared to say that they agree with Todd McClay. But I want to be generous to Todd McClay because he is not the Minister who for most of the last 7 years has been in charge of developing the computer system for those changes to occur.Dr David Clark: Who was?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That was Peter Dunne. Peter Dunne was the Minister who was meant to be in charge of that computer system up until June last year. He spent $50 million. Peter Dunne has spent $50 million not on buying a computer system but on overseas-based consultants—$50 million on overseas-based consultants spent by Peter Dunne. Who thinks that that is good value for money? And what has John Key done now that he has brought back Peter Dunne into his ministry? He has given him charge of the computer information systems and their oversight not for the Inland Revenue Department but for the entire Government.Dr David Clark: What about data security?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He is in charge of data security notwithstanding the fact that John Key has told the House that he thinks Peter Dunne is the person who leaked the Kitteridge report or made it available to a reporter. John Key has in an act of desperation brought Peter Dunne back into his ministry when we all know that Peter Dunne is a guilty man who is responsible for the parents of New Zealand not getting the amounts to which they are entitled and their kids will suffer as a result. There is not oneNational member opposite who is prepared to defend Peter Dunne from the accusations—from the facts—of his ineptitude.