O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call on Part 2. I must admit it has come quicker than I anticipated but fortunately I am quick to react. I want to attend mainly to clause 16—in effect an amendment to the Child Support Act and this amending section 9. In this case it's intending to take in section 9(5B) which says before 'the chief executive of the department for the time being responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act 2018' insert 'either the Commissioner or'."There are two things I would like clarity on from the Minister if they can. First and foremost which commissioner are we talking about? I suspect I know what it is in so far as there used to be called in the Ministry of Social Development "regional commissioners". Is that what is being referred to or is it a commissioner to oversee well in effect Madam—oh sorry Mr Chair. I do apologise; we've had a change. In effect we need a little bit more clarity about who this commissioner is and I want to be clear particularly to the Minister's officials that I'm not looking for the name of said person but what commissioner we are dealing with. To try and show the lack of clarity of course this Parliament's very aware that we have a multiplicity of commissioners from family commissioners to human rights commissioners to a multiplicity—Chris Bishop: Too many probably.SIMON O'CONNOR: Probably—arguably—too many. But in all seriousness I think there is a lack of specificity here about who this commissioner is particularly in their relationship to the chief executive which I assume is the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development. But I just want to make absolutely clear because another colleague Nicola Willis spoke earlier that actually we've seen rushed legislation like this before and it's led to mistakes. So in short and I suppose slightly tongue in cheek I don't want to see the Commissioner for the Environment involved with applying social benefits and that's no offence to that particular person. The other is then that if there is a chief executive and a commissioner both able to be responsible who has precedence? I assume it's the chief executive but again I think there is a lack of clarity in what's been presented to us here. So it would just be good to get some clarity from the Minister around that proposed clause 16.Again if it's of assistance Minister: who is the commissioner? Actually there's a third question. So who is the commissioner? Secondly what is their jurisdiction in relation to the chief executive—do they outrank under-rank or are they of equivalence? I think that's fairly important. And thirdly the drafting of this legislation has been quite particular that it's singular. Again I suspect we're not talking about the regional commissioners but if we are of course that's a plural and I want to make sure that if there are commissioners we don't have a drafting error here.I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I've had a further tabled amendment also around the United Nations obligations. It's similar to the one that was obviously tabled and voted down in Part 1. If I have an intention to table one that's I will be honest very similar is that out of order instantly or because of a new part—I just don't want to cause disorder.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The way forward for the member is to actually table it through the proper process. The clerks will bring it to the Table and provide me with advice and I will decide at that point. I can't make a ruling on something I haven't seen.SIMON O'CONNOR: Thank you Mr Chair. Look I will then just indicate that I am writing and amending a proposed Supplementary Order Paper that I do intend to table here which is just asking the Minister to effectively provide written confirmation to this committee that these changes remain agreeable to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and in particular within clauses 4 to 7 where it suggests in New Zealand—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I must tell the member that he can't debate something that's not before the committee. So you've advised me that you intend to do that. You cannot debate that until you actually do it. Thank you.SIMON O'CONNOR: Very good. Thank you Mr Chair. I will seek advice on that later but not disrupt the conversation now. I'm happy then to jump to veterans. I've probably got a lot more to discuss there. This is Subpart 2. I think the Minister in the chair will hopefully answer a couple of questions for me. First and foremost the House is working at the moment through a different process for another veterans' affairs bill. This bill is going to be effectively expanding the scope of those who are deemed to be veterans. I would welcome the Minister's indication to the committee whether or not some thought by her officials has been given to the implications of that particular bill—in fact it is to the Veterans' Support Act of 2014. That is only going into committee now but it would be good to get some assurance that the notion of abatements as discussed in this Subpart 2 has been considered by the Minister and the officials.Why that's relatively important is that there are fundamentally cost implications. As I've indicated in earlier speeches I think it's actually a really good part here. I myself am very supportive of what the Minister is doing to look at the abatements but I think it's quite important as we are looking towards financial implications that we not only look at the current practice but that we're also about to—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Simon O'Connor. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Mr Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Oh sorry I've already given the call.SIMON O'CONNOR: Thank you. The fates are on my side for once. This is good. I think it would be useful just that there's some affirmation from the Minister who's showing great eagerness which I am very keen on that with this proposed legislation—as was indicated in the House earlier in the week there does appear to be unanimity from the House so we can anticipate that probably hundreds if not thousands of veterans will now be officially declared as veterans and therefore will come under the role of this abatement. So I just want some assurance as far as the Minister is willing and able to indicate that that's been taken into account.The other area that I would like to just touch on—and I signalled it I think in my first or second reading—is whether or not there's scope for us as a Parliament in particular yourself Minister as the holder of the purse if you will as a Minister of the Crown to be more generous to our veterans. So while I acknowledge that what is here in Subpart 2 and the subsequent clauses is about aligning the abatement rates for veterans in fact is there a possibility or has any consideration been given to making it slightly more generous? I know that probably puts us into issues of discrimination. It probably in this case would be a positive discrimination rather than a negative one but if any thought has been given by the Minister to that that would be welcome. If any advice has been sought that would be particularly useful. I myself haven't served but I know a number of members in this Chamber have and of course we are in a Chamber that is a war memorial. These people have served the Realm with honour and obviously they seek their entitlements through Veterans' Affairs. They like anyone else receiving support from the Crown can look to work. I'm wondering whether or not there's a possibility therefore in the abatement to be slightly more generous. I'm not going to give a particular number. I think that gets a little bit fraught but any assistance there would be incredibly incredibly welcome.As we move into Part 2—this is to do with the new schedule under Part 2—just some clarity around the dates there. I know we get into title and commencement of the whole package later but I am wondering why we have April 2020 and why it is so far out? I'm looking for some transitional arrangements there. I may have missed those in Part 2 but any indication from the Minister again as to why this is taking so long would be welcome. I suspect—but the Minister may wish to confirm this—that this is to keep it in line with the other abatement changes but perhaps it would be a partial solution as it were to assisting our veterans in a more generous form that we actually move to have their abatements put in place fairly quickly.That probably leads me to my last question: is the Minister able to provide us some details about of course the abatement rates across the main benefits like sole parents and employment support? Also as a consequence is she able to give us the numbers of those that she's anticipating in the veterans' support space will be affected by her changes?So there are a few things there that I've tried to raise for the Minister in the chair. As I said primarily it's around clause 16: the notion of who is a commissioner. Have we used the right term? Is it pluralised sufficiently or is singular OK? Their relationship with the chief executive—I would love if I can to have absolute assurance that we know specifically who the commissioner or those commissioners are and that we're not going to end up with any confusion there. Then to assist the Minister around the abatements—again first and foremost to acknowledge a good piece of work overall—has thought been given to how that's affecting the current amendment bill to the Veterans' Support Act? I suppose the fundamental point there Minister is that we have a large number of veterans coming on board I suspect. It's a fairly large budget. As I flipped through the documents I saw that that's being taken care of. And then really it's not a philosophical question but a broad question—whether or not any thought's been given for us to be more generous to those women and men who have rightly served the Realm."