O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): We'll see how many calls we're able to get but I would just like to indicate to Jan Logie the member who's just resumed her seat who was talking about trust and particularly trust of women and just remind her that she's a member of Parliament as I am. Why I mention that is this Parliament is based on making laws precisely because we don't trust people. We make laws to protect the most vulnerable. We make laws to actually create structures around them.Just to illustrate the point that she might be right—we might need to trust women around these sanctions—I ask that member why she does not trust women with driving speeds and why she does not trust women with seatbelts. She's part of a process here in this Parliament where rules are made where we do not trust people. I just say that because the member was very quick to use the word consistency" and the funny thing is there was a terrible terrible lack of it. So just a reminder to that member next time she talks about trust that she's part of a parliamentary process where we actually—[Interruption]CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Matt Doocey you know the rules. You do not interject while walking around the Chamber OK? You go back to your chair.SIMON O'CONNOR: Thank you Mr Chair. So I think that just puts paid to the trust argument because if the member's going to be consistent then apply it to pretty much every law in this House which applies to every man woman and children—and child; sorry I'll get my declensions right.Part 1 clause 8 is talking about the rates of benefit to be set down by Order in Council. New section 452A(1)(a) talks about the "average ordinary time weekly" as expressed on a quarterly basis which makes sense and to be published in March each year. I would like the Minister if she's prepared to take a call to explain to me and the committee why that was chosen. I suspect the average ordinary time of weekly earnings is the appropriate measure but I am not an expert. I know that she has officials here. I would welcome it if she would do so to provide us an explanation of why that was chosen. With what has happened around Statistics New Zealand—I know it was to do with the census—I would just like the Minister in the chair to express confidence in Statistics New Zealand to be able to provide those details both accurately and on a timely basis.The other question I'd ask in relation to what is going to be a change through new section 452A is why it's "every year". I think that I don't know by tradition makes sense but I'm also very aware that from Statistics New Zealand and then through to other Government departments like the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the like we are getting this on a quarterly basis. In the spirit of generosity not only to the Minister but of course to the people who are going to be supported why not enable a review to be done every quarter rather than every year? If I'm suggesting in this committee that every quarter is a step too far and far too generous for this centre-right politician can I suggest we come to an amicable agreement to make it every six months? The great thing about Orders in Council is that you're actually able to do those quite frequently as the Minister knows so I can't see a process problem there.So those are a couple of very basic questions that I think are fairly important to me and I suspect to this side of the committee to understand fundamentally why the average ordinary time of weekly earnings was chosen over say the Consumers Price Index for example or even linking it to changes in the minimum wage. I suspect I will know the answer to why it's there because that's been the protocols and perhaps it's linked to the Budget which is timely of course seeing as we are 25½ hours after the last one. But why not by quarters? I think in some ways that would enable—particularly if we are into the argument of supporting particularly vulnerable women and their children—why we are not able to in a sense keep up with the play. And in a modern environment as we are now of big data computers and the like we should be able to do this. Having used some of the welfare systems I'm sure even the Social Welfare Information for Tomorrow Today system and UCV2—if the Minister and those people are still using those systems—might be able to keep up with it.Look I also have a couple of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in my name which I might address if I am allowed the time. The first is SOP 241. This is a suggestion to insert a new clause 6A. In effect it's seeking to create a review process. Obviously after two sets of votes which this side have lost I have accepted somewhat emotionally that we probably won't be able to stop the overall intent of this legislation; so in the order of attempting to be constructive I thought it would be important to review it. A member who's recently taken the chair talked about wanting to be evidence-based. I'm looking forward to her support for this SOP because this is about collecting evidence. This is about a review effectively around the number of non-declared parents. What it's going to seek to do in new clause 6A is in effect ask the Ministry of Social Development to now explicitly record and track the number of people who are first and foremost applying for the sole parent benefit. That will be relatively easy because they are already doing that but in the course of preparing for this discussion today it's not actually been readily available how many people have up to now been sanctioned nor how many people have not declared the other parent. I was able to track down some information courtesy of written parliamentary questions but it's not a matter of course for the Ministry of Social Development to indicate the number.I'd better be clear: we're not asking for a "name and shame" by any means—this is obviously anonymised data—but what we'd love to see as per the suggested addition of new section 194A(1)(b) is to note those who "fail to identify who is in law…". I am happy if members opposite want to amend that; I am conscious that the word "fail" is relatively negative. That perhaps reflects my general views here but I think it would be incredibly helpful.I've gone on in this SOP to also suggest a trigger warning to those of trigger points. The trigger point is 500 parents in a single quarter or 1500 parents in a calendar year. I'm the first to admit that's incredibly low. I noted in my second reading speech that about 12000 people—from what I was able to see—have not declared the other parent; so this is deliberately low and I'm happy for that to be discussed and debated but I've kept it deliberately low because while I want this triggered I think it's important again to use the words particularly from the Green Party who want this to be "evidence-based".Then the further clauses that carry through are just to make sure that the review is done in a timely and a speedy fashion. So in this new clause 6A which is making an amendment to the principal Act by inserting a new section 194A the review must begin immediately when those trigger points in subsection (2) occur. That's for two reasons. Firstly it's to make sure that MSD is recording the data and that the moment per quarter effectively that this happens they get on to it. I've given them 60 days in this SOP—or I am suggesting it of course; this is not an Act yet—but again I'm very much looking forward to the other side's supporting it because they are evidence-based. They've got 60 days—I'm always a little bit sceptical. Look I used to work in a Government department and I'm sceptical of myself then achieving things in a timely manner.Importantly as in subclause (3)—I'm afraid I don't always get the legal nomenclature—the review must be tabled in Parliament within one month of the completion of the review. Now obviously my motive if you will is to make sure that the Minister—and it's actually not a reflection on the particular Minister; this would apply if it was someone from my own side—ensures that this is in the House swiftly so that we as a Parliament can look into it. I would be very happy for the Minister in the chair through her experience I suppose to explain to me if that's too short. If it's more prudent that it should be two months for example we'd be happy to look at that.Probably the final point on this SOP if I might—and I haven't put it in yet and I don't know if I require another SOP—is to indicate which select committee the bill should go to. I suspect it's best handled in the Social Services and Community Committee but there is a small argument to be made that it could also be in the Finance and Expenditure Committee because ultimately this is having a financial impact. My instincts suggest it should be in the Social Services and Community Committee because fundamentally this is about the children as has been said. So that Supplementary Order Paper ultimately accepting somewhat—and I hope my colleagues don't resile from me for it—that this legislation will be progressing is an attempt to be constructive. It is an attempt to bring out the evidence so that we do have that information. MSD is I would have to say particularly good at bringing information forward but the number of people who have not declared the father in particular is not readily accessible in its quarterly reporting or not that I've been able to find. So I think that would be helpful.I am more than happy for the Minister in the chair or anyone else who wishes to take a call today to push back if required on the numbers where this is triggered the time it's requiring MSD to process the review and in particular the time for the Minister to report back. If that's inappropriate I would be the first to and happy to change that."