edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Minister has advised that Supplementary Order Papers 20 21 and 22 may have an impact on the Government's fiscal aggregates. They are ruled out of order as they were not lodged with 24 hours' notice.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Amendments to Schedules of principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Part 2 stand part.Part 2 agreed to.Schedules 1 and 2 CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 1 stand part.Schedule 1 agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.Schedule 2 agreed to.Clause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 CommencementCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clause 2 stand part.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 Principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clause 3 stand part.Clause 3 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will report this bill without amendment presently.
Child Support Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Appropriation (2019/20 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2019/20 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
12. Question No. 12—ConservationRACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 12—Conservation12. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has she made regarding Jobs for Nature projects in South Westland?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Last week I was in Franz Josef to announce the launch of an ambitious Jobs for Nature - backed project that will restore nature and sustain jobs in COVID-hit South Westland. Predator Free South Westland represents the biggest step yet on mainland Aotearoa towards the predator-free 2050 goal and over five years the $45 million project aims to eliminate possums rats and stoats from 100000 hectares between the Whataroa and Waiau rivers the crest of the Southern Alps and the shores of the Tasman Sea including the townships of Franz Josef Whataroa and Ōkārito.Rachel Brooking: How will this project support the local community in South Westland?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Can I first acknowledge that the community is one of the worst affected economically by COVID and that while this project is not a silver bullet it will provide real opportunities. Over the length of the project up to 50 people are expected to be employed with 18 locals already on board including some who have been working in the tourism industry. Over the longer term it is anticipated that the project will provide career pathways for locals and young people to maintain predator-free zones and expand them into new areas.Rachel Brooking: What outcomes for nature is this project expected to deliver and how will they be achieved?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Eliminating pests in this area will protect New Zealand's rarest kiwi the rowi along with many other rare and threatened species including kōtuku kea and the recently rediscovered Ōkārito geko. The project will deploy boots-on-the-ground labour and innovative remote reporting detection devices high-tech traps and bait stations with the mountains rivers and lakes that surround the area being used as a natural barrier—so no fences—against predator reinvasions. Can I thank the community partners that are involved including Zero Invasive Predators Osprey the NEXT Foundation and the Rūnanga O Makaawhio for their hard work and dedication towards this ambitious and exciting project.Hon Member: Go the Warriors.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Go the Warriors.SPEAKER: I can't quite tell the relationship but that concludes oral questions.
5. Question No. 5—Social Development and EmploymentTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 5—Social Development and Employment5. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made about the social work profession?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Today on World Social Work Day I announced that New Zealand has now reached a milestone of 10300 registered social workers—an increase of 3600 over the last four years. This milestone follows the introduction on 27 February 2019 of mandatory registration legislation—a measure that has been long sought by the sector. Today we celebrate the progress that has been made in future-proofing the profession as well as acknowledging the 10300 registered social workers who continue to serve on the front line supporting some of New Zealand's most vulnerable tamariki whānau and communities.Terisa Ngobi: Why is mandatory registration important for the social work profession?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Our social workers are at the front line providing assistance to those who most need it. Mandatory registration is a step forward recognising the professional nature of the workforce. It offers reassurance to the public that social workers are qualified adhere to a code of ethics are annually updating their practising certificate and are continually engaged in professional development. This gives New Zealanders confidence in the care advice and support they need from the social work profession.Terisa Ngobi: What actions has the Government taken to support and increase mandatory registration in the profession?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Government invested just over $2 million in Budget 2019 to support the Social Workers Registration Board's implementation of mandatory registration over two years. In another step forward I've asked the Social Workers Registration Board to act as the lead agency on workforce planning in a move to strengthen the profession. They are also looking into a scope of practice which will provide a high level description of social work practice. These actions are aimed to encourage more social workers into the profession and underlines the Government's plan to support healthier safer and more connected communities.
2. Question No. 2—EducationANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 2—Education2. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What response has he seen to Government initiatives to support training and apprenticeships?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Good news—I'm pleased to report that New Zealanders are flocking to the trades with more than 100000 learners supported in free vocational training and apprenticeships under the Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund or TTAP. The latest enrolment data shows 106600 people have taken advantage of free trades training since we introduced it in July last year including more than 58000 apprentices. The Government introduced TTAP in July last year and it makes a range of qualifications in targeted areas and all apprenticeships free until December 2022.Angela Roberts: What industries are these students and apprentices working in?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Good news—one-third of TTAP learners are in the building and construction industry with the next most popular areas primary industries and then community support. Once qualified these workers will help support New Zealand's effort to recover from COVID-19 and develop our economy in the years to come.Angela Roberts: Are Māori Pacific people and older workers well represented in the programme?Hon Chris Hipkins: Very good question. Yes. It's good to see very strong interest from across the community. Nineteen percent are Māori 9 percent Pacific and 13 percent Asian. Also in terms of age cohorts this isn't just designed for school-leavers but for people in a wide range of circumstances throughout their lives. People have taken that on board; nearly a quarter are over the age of 40 and about two-thirds overall are over the age of 25.Angela Roberts: What reports has he seen about other Government initiatives to support training and apprenticeships?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news—as well as the free training for learners we're backing employers to keep their apprentices in work through their training through the Apprenticeship Boost scheme. Apprenticeship Boost provides a subsidy for employers of $1000 a month for the first year of an apprentice's work and $500 a month in the second year. Since the Apprenticeship Boost was rolled out in August last year over 10000 employers have signed up and received almost $97 million worth of subsidies for 21000 apprentices. In the second half of last year it roughly doubled the number of apprentice new starts signed up compared to the year before.
Building (Building Products and Methods Modular Components and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
van Velden Brooke; Rurawhe AdrianBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the second reading of the Building (Building Products and Methods Modular Components and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge all of the New Zealanders who work hard to provide homes for us in New Zealand: the builders plumbers drainlayers electricians architects carpenters tilers bricklayers project managers suppliers developers and those who take on the risk and years of stress to see a project to completion. It's all of their hard work that provides us homes for our families in this country.A number of people from these industries took the time to make a submission on this bill and I thank them sincerely for taking that time. Our democracy works best when we hear from New Zealanders who work in industries that would be affected by a change in law. It provides a boots on the ground" perspective that lawmakers in Wellington need.This bill seeks to amend the Building Act to support the building sector to shift to new more effective and efficient building work and construction. It seeks to do this by strengthening the existing product certification system CodeMark to ensure products sold in New Zealand comply with the building code. It also establishes a new manufacturers' certification scheme for non-traditional methods of construction such as modular components and off-site manufacturing.The ACT Party supports this reform of regulations around building products and methods for building homes. We think it's an important part in addressing the housing deficit in New Zealand. Recent reports show not only that housing in New Zealand is unaffordable by international standards and getting worse but also the reason why: we are simply not building enough homes. This bill is a small but practical step towards addressing that shortage.Because of submissions during select committee the ACT Party still has a concern regarding the certification of a modular component manufacturer. Our concern is that a designer would not appear to have a role in certifying whether products manufactured in accordance with their design do in fact comply with the design intent. We will be putting forward an amendment in the committee of the whole House to address this issue and our concern. This is an important bill that has the ACT Party's support. Thank you. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members we've gone past 9.54. Therefore this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House will adjourn until 2 p.m. tomorrow.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m."
Webb Duncan; Parker DavidDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. I wonder if I can ask the Minister in respect of parliamentary scrutiny and in particular presentation of instruments to the House—and I'm particularly interested in the role of the Attorney-General—Hon Scott Simpson: Why isn't this man in the Cabinet? Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —in that parliamentary counsel will be presenting to the House a report on exemptions from presentation. So instruments—Hon Scott Simpson: He'd be better than Kelvin this one.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —which would usually be presented but for one reason or another the legislation said it need not be presented—Hon Scott Simpson: Make this man a Minister.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —or presented in such and such a way. I'm just wondering if the Minister could comment on what kind of reasons might be there—Hon Scott Simpson: Carmel Sepuloni will be shuddering in her feet.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —and whether this report and the role of the Attorney-General will bolster parliamentary scrutiny?Hon Scott Simpson: So will Megan Woods.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the call the Hon Scott Simpson even in your interjections please get the titles correct thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): The most likely examples are matters relating to national security where the Government has done something that is of legislative effect that would normally—or does—fall within the category of secondary legislation but for reasons of national security the normal public processes that surround that would not apply. That's a carry-forward of existing processes in the new regime that's necessary. The other example would be sometimes where there are issues of commercial sensitivity and I can imagine that sometimes applying in respect of exemptions that are given in respect of proposed takeovers and the like.
Rurawhe Adrian; Brooking Rachel; Parker DavidClause 4 Amendments to Legislation Act 2019CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the debate on clause 4 including schedules 33 to 35. This is the debate on the amendments to the Legislation Act 2019. The question is that clause 4 stand part.RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. So one question on Schedule 33—sorry this is at page 339 of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 12. There's a new subclause (3) inserted in clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the principal Act. It says Nothing in this clause limits the information that the PCO"—the Parliamentary Counsel Office—"may record and publish in relation to an Act in relation to an empowering provision (for example as an aid to assist users to understand how this Act applies to secondary legislation)." That's an inclusion in the SOP and I was wondering why it needed to be included and what benefit it will have.Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Again officials can correct me if I've got this wrong but my understanding is that's to empower the Parliamentary Counsel Office to put explanations in legislation in these redrafted provisions that are being amended through this Act so as to make it easier for people who look at them to actually work out what it's saying and how it's to be applied."
Secondary Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clause 3
Lewis Steph; Parker David; Rurawhe AdrianSTEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you Mr Chair. I being a little bit of a law nerd really applaud anything that makes the law more accessible to the New Zealand public. I was actually at opened the central North Island secondary schools debating competition in my electorate on the weekend and was reflecting about the first time I ever got up and participated in a debate myself. At that point I had to go to the local bookshop and buy the Act that formed part of our debate the Animal Welfare Act. So you know we've come very far obviously in terms of our accessibility to the law and legislation in New Zealand. My question Minister Parker is whether thought was given to taking this a step further and making it more widely available in the same way that our Acts are available so there's a sort of central repository for regulations; and if not why not?Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Ultimately we do want all of the secondary legislation whether it's passed by Government agencies or some other body that's authorised to pass legislation to be accessible on an information platform. That requires new IT systems and processes not just in Parliamentary Counsel Office but also for other agencies that draft secondary legislation. So we're on the way there but we haven't yet arrived and some of the impediments to getting there are fiscal.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 be agreed to. Amendments agreed to.Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
Brooking Rachel; Parker DavidRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. My question relates to Schedule 9 linked into clause 3. This is to do with the Ministry for the Environment schedules and I'm wondering if you considered during the process—whether there was consideration of regulations of the sort that are made by district councils and plans and also in the local government provisions by-laws if there's the justification for them not being included as secondary legislation; if you'd be able to talk to that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): My memory from that is old and officials will tell me if I've got this wrong but my memory is you had to have a cut-off somewhere. It was already an onerous task doing it across all of Government. Picking up all of the by-laws that are passed by district councils or regional councils was thought to be an additional task. It was at that stage a step too far. But that said given that the outcome of this will eventually be better access to the law for people it would be nice to see one day the country embark upon that task and get those instruments in a form that can be more readily accessed by the people who are bound by them.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to be able to stand and make a brief contribution to what I understand is affectionately known as the SLAB" of a bill and that it is. I want to first acknowledge on that point the extraordinary amount of work that the Parliamentary Counsel Office and other staff actually across several Government agencies that administer primary legislation have put into this bill.Now there might not be many people whose eyes light up when it's time to talk about secondary legislation. However despite the hour—and we're getting a bit late now—I see several colleagues from the Regulations Review Committee are looking bright-eyed and excited as we consider this bill at committee stage as they should be. Because there are important rules set out in secondary legislation as in this bill and the Supplementary Order Paper that govern much in the day-to-day lives of New Zealanders.Of course it's the role of the Regulations Review Committee to at various points review—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but this is quite a narrow debate. It's clause 2 not the whole bill.VANUSHI WALTERS: Of course.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So you need to relate your comments to the commencement in clause 2.VANUSHI WALTERS: Can I refer to page 6 of the Supplementary Order Paper where the Minister makes some points about various sections that needed to be reviewed. I just ask the Minister if he could speak to the second-to-bottom point relating to the correcting of amendments to ensure that empowering provisions and related procedural provisions will integrate correctly with the Legislation Act 2019. Are you able to provide us with further information on that?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister's amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to."
Secondary Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
Brooking Rachel; Parker DavidRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. As the member Chris Penk just noted it is a very large Supplementary Order Paper that we have in front of us and as you note a lot of it is repeating the various statutes that are amended. I note I guess with some irony that in the commencement provision one of the changes is that An Order in Council under this section is secondary legislation"—as per the legislation there for publication requirements. And it is really that "publication requirements". You just touched on it and mentioned the technology but have you got any further time frames on that or any discussion of what some of the difficulties might be with that?Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): We're actually not envisaging difficulties in choosing a date to trigger all of these processes across the statute book to line up and become more consistent across the many arms of Government; nor are we envisaging difficulties in choosing the date when we regularise the exceptions or exemptions—I'm not sure which we're calling them. In respect of how we bring into effect the better publication requirements we're less certain of that because we haven't yet finished the technological changes that are necessary to enable it. I'm sure officials will tell me if I'm simplifying that.RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. Also on the Supplementary Order Paper in your commentary on it in the explanatory note at page 6 you refer to the correction of some of the "empowering provisions that inadvertently catch as secondary legislation instruments that do not have legislative effect"—so that difference between the secondary and something that is not secondary. So I was wondering if you had any examples that you could give us of that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): In a minute. Well look what I can say in respect of that—I'm asking for officials to give me a particular instance but I understand it's some of the rules that are made by organisations that are bound by statute aren't of statutory effect. I might have this wrong but you could tell me—from memory it could have been some of the provisions under the Racing Act where sometimes clubs have rules which really aren't we think of sufficient import to be treated like regulations and therefore go through that route. So there has been a cataloguing across the statute book of things that are important enough to be seen to be of statutory effect or regulatory effect that should be within this regularised regime. There have been some things that really are lower-level rules that we don't think meet that threshold and therefore those latter ones are being excluded. I think there has been some discussion at the Regulations Review Committee about those issues. I wasn't there for those discussions and I'm sorry I can't remember the individual instances."
Secondary Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
Salesa JennySECONDARY LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the Secondary Legislation Bill. Members should note that the Business Committee has extended the powers of the committee to permit consideration of the proposed out-of-scope amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 13.Members we come first to the debate on clause 1. This is the debate on the title clause. The question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.
Bennett Glen; Parker DavidGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Chair. I rise and acknowledge my colleagues from across the floor on our select committee who have been through this process and as Maureen Pugh was saying earlier we got to hear some harrowing submissions some challenging submissions and obviously ideas of how we should change and make this fit for purpose for all people. I guess a lot of it was around liable parents and how do they front up and do their thing. I guess I also want to acknowledge obviously the Hon David Parker here for having this piece of legislation. Also I see the under-secretary Deborah Russell is in the House as well tonight who was part of crafting this bill. I want to talk about the four-year time bar. I guess when I was listening to Maureen Pugh and she was talking—Hon Member: Name dropping.GLEN BENNETT: Yeah we go way back. It was around the liable parent contribution. And I guess talking to the people in my electorate and knowing what people expect of us it's often around feelings of loss of separation obviously but then it comes to the space around justice around fairness and I guess who does this bill serve? So I rise to ask that question around this four-year time bar in terms of where it fits in this bill tonight and I guess why the four-year time bar? And I guess in thinking about the submissions that we heard there were parents who obviously were struggling with not only potentially being a sole parent or being a sole parent in a different relationship now but it was really around that re-litigation and that challenge I think of a previous spouse or a partner challenging the decisions that had been made. So I guess my question is around the time bar and will it be an unfair limit on a person's right to be assessed on the correct grounds? That's my question.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you. The four-year time bar is intended to set out a reasonable period that you can go back and if it was longer than four years it seemed on balance that that was unreasonable and that therefore the reassessment period should only be able to go back for four years from the end of the relevant child support year. And I'm advised by officials that 98 percent of reassessments occur within a four-year period. So the 2 percent of reassessments don't have to be balanced against the cost and the complexity and the uncertainty that's created if you can go back further. There are some exceptions to the legislated time bar to address equity concerns. For example if a person is subsequently found not to be the parent of the child then that four-year period wouldn't apply. Or if information is provided that's found to be fraudulent so there's intentional criminal activity then that time bar would not apply either.
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Just to remind the Minister the second point was the cost that's being imposed on businesses. You talked about making sure that the IRD could get access to the penalties to recover their costs but there's no issue around cost-sharing or even acknowledging the role that businesses play in terms of capturing that money.Can I just take the Minister up on his point about sham transactions. These are not sham transactions; these happen every day through companies. There are many ways of remunerating directors and shareholders and this is but one of the mechanisms and it's a pretty obvious mechanism.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): If I could quickly deal with the latter point first again: sometimes a shareholder advance will be advanced by a company that's making no money and there is no income and a shareholder advance shouldn't be taken into account for parent contribution purposes. On other occasions that won't be the case so I don't think a universal rule would be practical. In respect of the value that employers bring to this yes we do value that. I don't think the bill takes any different stance to that which was proposed by the then National Government when they started this work which envisaged that liable parent contributions would be collected from people's wages and salaries. The impost of that on employers in practice is actually lower than it was in yesteryear because these things are so much easier to do via software that enables it.
Upston Louise; Parker DavidHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to just ask some questions of the Minister that pick up on one of the comments that the speaker before me Karen Chhour raised and that is the fact that this is a child support piece of legislation. We had a number of submitters who asked us why the best interests of the child weren't at the heart of this legislation. Given the Prime Minister's commitment to children I wondered if in drafting these changes there had been consideration for what was in the best interests of the child; and if not why was that not considered as the kind of fundamental driver for these changes. I accept and National accepts that some of the changes we agree with but I wonder and I'm interested in the Minister's comments whether or not this is actually in fact a missed opportunity to better support children in need.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Children will be better supported after the package that is in bill than they are now. This is a good bill and it does advance children and it is in their best interests.
Chhour Karen; Parker DavidKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I just find it a bit funny that we are talking about a Child Support Amendment Bill—it is about supporting the child not the Crown. My Supplementary Order Paper 20 will ensure that the late fees go to impacted children and prevent the money from being absorbed into the Government's accounts. The amount you need now is a lot less than what you needed before with these upgrades. We've got new computer systems in place. We're now having employers taking on the responsibility of collecting the money. So how can you justify saying that it is too expensive to just allow these children to have that money that was meant for them in the first place? This will also mean that parents are more likely to want to pay their late fees as they know the money is going towards their child not the Crown coffers and will be going directly to some of our most vulnerable children who Labour says they want to help.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): There is no way the Government's ahead in any of these transactions.
Swarbrick Chlöe; Parker DavidCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister's response to the questions that I put before particularly in outlining specifically that actually what is in this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name is Labour Party policy. It's kind of gutting that it's therefore not going to be voted on in favour and support by obviously the Labour majority in this House. But to that point I assume—in speaking to the fact that this is too expensive based on other priorities that are presently being weighed up by this Government—that the Minister can give us specifics when it comes to exactly what cost we would be looking at to implement a change like this particularly because said that it was weighed up and that it is Labour Party policy and that there is the opportunity obviously as a Government to implement it.The other point that I just want to make with regard to the changes as proposed in this SOP is that I think it needs to be really really clearly again re-emphasised that in the present state of play when you have a custodial household which is also a beneficiary household the IRD collects the money from the non-custodial parent intended for child support and keeps that which offsets the cost of the benefit. On that kind of point it seems rather next level beyond the pale to me and in fact to the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand that in fact the calculations that are being made here is that the IRD intends to keep and take and calculate and account for receiving child support. The IRD is intending to receive child support which is supposed to go to children in turn being aware of the fact that it is compounding disadvantage in an incredibly unequal Aotearoa New Zealand which was reflected in the Government's own commission reports. So again I ask the Minister particularly—what is the cost? Because he's stated that there have been weighing-up decisions made. What is the cost of ensuring that child support which is intended to support the child is actually passed on to that child if the IRD's not deciding to interfere and keep some of that money? What is the cost? And secondly what's holding the Minister back? If this is Labour Party policy and we have an overwhelming majority of Labour Party seats in this House and they're the driving force in this Government what is holding the Minister back?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): As to the last point I think I've addressed that on a number of occasions already. In respect of the cost I don't have that figure here. I know that as a party we costed that before we put it into our policy. Those estimates may already be on the web. I've seen other estimates which I don't have to hand. If the member wants to contact me some other I'm happy to provide her with them.
Pugh Maureen; Parker DavidMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I just want to raise another couple of issues that came up during the select committee process. These relate to some very strong submissions from submitters around the 50:50 shared care so where the receiving parent and the liable parent share 50:50 care for their children. The strong submissions that were made relate to why there is a liable parent at all when the parents share the custody arrangements and the care arrangements and the costs for the children of that relationship. I just wonder if that is seen as a fair distribution of where the costs actually lay because if they are shared equally between the two parents then why is there a need at all for a liable parent contribution.The second point that I would make around that—and it was raised in the select committee submissions as well—is about the unintended consequence of that shared care arrangement where the liable parent takes up a new relationship and they have a new family and that new family is actually inadvertently placed in a position of severe hardship. We had some quite impassioned submissions around this—that what we've ended up doing in terms of those liable parent contributions is left the second family in a state of severe hardship and I wonder if in doing that the Government is actually not placing the needs of the child as the paramount consideration in terms of those two families. I just wonder if you could comment on that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In respect of the first issue I think that's relatively easily dealt with. It's true that both parents might be sharing the cost of raising a child through shared custody that could be 50:50 but the means of the parents might be quite different and it's possible to envisage a situation I think quite easily where one of the parents has got virtually no income or has very low income relative to the other one and it's fair that the financial contribution between the parent of higher income to the lower income parent is necessary for that other parent to help care for the child.In respect of the second issue these issues are very difficult at the margin. I don't think we'll ever get the rules to the point where everyone's completely satisfied. Parents do have responsibility for the children from their earlier relationships and the rules that we try to devise in society try to get that right. I think overall we're not perfect but we improve with each iteration.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Referring to recent contributions in respect of the definition of income" it is being amended and the purpose of that amendment is to better reflect the liable parents' financial capability to support. This does incorporate investment income now including interests and dividends for parents who are salary and wage earners; it already did in respect of non - salary and wage earners. In addition there is no longer going to be the ability for the paying parent to offset losses carried forward from earlier years.In respect of a person who thinks that another parent is hiding income the Act allows that person to apply to Inland Revenue for an assessment of the liable parent to check that they are paying what they ought to.In respect of the penalties point I've already said—in respect of the wider issue which actually doesn't go to penalties; it goes to the underlying payment—that we have sympathy for that position but as I said we have to balance that against other priorities. Whilst it is a policy of the Labour Party that we will endeavour to improve the pass-through of parent contributions in terms of the Budget priorities that we've assessed that against until now including benefit increases you know the accommodation supplement changes the likes of the Best Start payment and contributions to health and education spending we've found that those other priorities have to date prevailed."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to pick up on this issue around penalty payments being passed on to the parent who is caring for the child but hasn't received their full entitlement to support their child in care. I can accept the Minister's argument to some extent that the IRD has an administration cost around it in terms of collecting and that therefore—I think the argument was—because there's a higher administration cost all that penalty amount should pass on to the IRD. However I think there's two things that have changed. The first one is—and the Minister referred to this—that we've got a new START system coming into play on the IRD Business Transformation Programme. There are big computer roll-outs that have been taking place for the last four years. So the costs around administering this stuff is now largely going to be done electronically. Secondly a lot of that money in terms of the collection of it and administration is now being imposed on business which is a separate point.So that's one side of it. The other argument I would suggest is that the whole intent of what we're doing in this bill is to streamline it make it simpler and actually try and get around the issue of penalty payments occurring. So those people who are very tardy under this system under what this bill will bring in will be people who are quite deliberate because they would have gone through the 28 days that the Minister referred to and would've still been non-compliant.So I heard what the Minister's said but I just don't think the arguments are persuasive that we need to have a system where all the penalties need to go to the IRD to cover their costs given the fact it's now largely electronic and we're trying to minimise penalties. At the end of the day I suggest to the Minister that he's actually not looking at the purpose and intent of this bill. The purpose and intent of this bill is to look after those children in broken homes who are in difficult family arrangements where one parent may not even be providing any care at all or very limited care and the recompense in monetary form is not taking place. I think that's what we should bear in mind in this bill.I didn't even hear from the Minister whether in fact he might contemplate having a further look at this issue. I can understand why he mightn't want to do it tonight even though we'd flagged it well in advance during the select committee process—but I ask him whether he is prepared to contemplate this as a course of investigation so when we do the next round of upgrading this Child Support Bill and whether it might be something that might be on the agenda at that point.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise very briefly to ask about the definition of income because as a Family Court lawyer and as a friend of separated parents I have heard time and again the angst that is created by the feeling that the ex-partner is concealing sources of income. While it is I think going to be welcomed that interest and dividends are now included I would like to hear from the Minister as to why the definition of income is not being extended further to ensure child support is based on parents' real income. It is something that causes a great deal of angst for separated parents and it is something on which I would like to hear from the Minister.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Kia ora Madam Chair. I wanted to rise and speak to the issue that has been addressed by previous speakers which is that a punitive approach has not been shown to increase compliance. The previous administration admitted this when they removed sanctions on sole parents acknowledging that a punitive approach did not increase compliance within the welfare system especially when naming fathers and them providing child support as a result which is why we are welcoming a step toward reducing some of the subsequent penalties under this Act.But I did want to speak firstly in support of the ACT Party's Supplementary Order Paper mostly because it does follow within the principle of at least putting some more money into people's pockets. While we do not support penalties in general as an approach towards increasing compliance we acknowledge that within the welfare system and income support system that we have we have a duty to ensure that people have as much money as possible to make ends meet.This leads me to my question which is around the response for my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick's Supplementary Order Paper which would've advanced the Government's goal of making the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report a blueprint for this Government and this is an opportunity to continue making a blueprint for this Government's welfare reforms. When the Minister says that this Supplementary Order Paper by Chlöe Swarbrick wouldn't be introduced because of budgetary constraints I'm interested to know: how much does he advise it would cost and more broadly how much does he believe that making this change would actually help towards reducing child poverty in Aotearoa and additionally how much would it reduce costs elsewhere in the welfare system by nature of low-income families requiring hardship grants in order to make ends meet?
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you Madam Chair. In respect to the privacy issue that was raised by a speaker two speakers ago there is a discretion for the Inland Revenue to at the request of someone who has privacy concerns accept another payment method rather than payment via the employer. So it's the default method if there's no other action taken but if someone does have concerns they can raise them with Inland Revenue and on a case-by-case basis and Inland Revenue can determine whether that's acceptable. I would envisage that if the person who's offered the alternative payment method would normally be believed then they would accept the offer of alternative payment methods rather than via the employer. But then of course if the person defaulted on their obligations and it was just a ruse to avoid liability they would probably return to requiring deduction from wages via employers.In respect of the penalties point: of course the cost of administration of this falls to the Inland Revenue Department. I suspect that in respect of the vast majority of penalties the costs that the department incurs in recovering those penalties is actually higher than the penalties but in any event we're not supporting that particular Supplementary Order Paper which I understand is also out of order because it has fiscal effects and wasn't submitted to the House in time to meet the deadline.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I'd just like to stand up and speak to my Supplementary Order Paper 20—not 22; so I got in there a little bit earlier than the National Party even though you are saying that I got in after you. I'd like to just say that my Supplementary Order Paper is just to require that penalty fees—instead of being paid to the Crown—go to the carer that is taking care of the child.At the moment as the Child Support Act stands Part 9 requires that all money collected by the Crown under the Act be put into a trust account and be paid out to the people who received the child support. All I'm wanting to do is take away the exception of the penalty provision from this and make sure that instead of going into a general Crown account this would just remove that exception so that the penalty payments go into the same place as any other money collected and then go into the account set up for the transfer to the relevant carer. There is not much of a change and I cannot understand why it is so hard.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to start by saying thank you to the Minister for outlining the fact that it was quite a substantial discussion document by the previous Government that led to some of this work and I just respond to a comment by the member that spoke for the Green Party Chlöe Swarbrick by reminding the member that this is a Minister of Revenue and a Minister of Revenue wouldn't normally treat anything with kindness. He is the man who is responsible for filling the Government's coffers so good request but I'm not sure—or I'm not that optimistic—that he's going to take that invitation too seriously. But I do want to come back and just ask a couple of questions around my colleague's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Because this is an exact situation where the penalties that are being collected go straight into the Government's coffers and why can't that go in to support the children that are affected by this? The member from the Labour Party that spoke before me talked about the challenges of being a receiving parent and not getting funds from the liable parent and giving up on it which is absolutely the last thing that we'd want to see a parent do so obviously some of the changes that have been made will be helpful for that. But my question is: why has the Minister just completely out of hand discounted the SOP that my colleague has put forward given that it is only a penalty and is the Government that worried about collecting more taxation that it requires the penalties that are coming in from liable parents? I will have other questions but I shall leave it at that one just for now.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution. I have been a receiving parent and I have had so many dissatisfactions with the liable parent in terms of non-paying child support to the point that I just gave up and didn't bother that line and just carried on with my life. So my question really Minister Parker is about the new section 129A in clause 41 for automatic deductions for newly liable parents. My question is around the privacy of the liable parent with employers: the employer's ability to process the automatic deductions for the liable parent and also the privacy of the liable parent if they do not want to have their employer know their business—that they are actually a liable parent.It will be good to hear the Minister respond to that question because although in my experience—and I know a lot of people have come through it—of the non-paying liable parent making that contribution to the point that it's stressful at the same time we do have concerns around the compliance burden for employers and also the privacy of the liable parent in their workplace. If the Minister can answer that I'll be really interested in hearing his response. Thank you.