O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'm very very pleased to take a call on this Part 2. I'm wanting to focus on two amendments that hitherto I don't believe have been discussed and that's around—Matt Doocey: Oh new ones—the first time?SIMON O'CONNOR: Yeah first time—that's why hitherto they haven't been discussed so it's good. These are the amendments in the name of the Hon Jonathan Coleman and it's probably going to be no surprise to the Minister in the chair that I'm picking up firstly two things that are health-related and secondly how we can actually work with what's already in the bill to make it just a little bit better. In this particular case the first amendment in the name of Jonathan Coleman is looking to insert a new clause after the current clause 71. So we're suggesting this is new clause 71A. It reads for those who probably haven't read it: Any person who is eligible to receive an accommodation supplement will be eligible"—The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member but the tabled amendment that the member is speaking about will be ruled out of scope so there is no debate on this part. So the member needs to move on. SIMON O'CONNOR: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It's for your advice if you don't mind in that "it's going to be ruled out of scope" means that it's currently in scope until it's ruled out by voting? The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. It is my determination from the Chair that it will be ruled out of scope. Therefore it cannot be debated on. The member can continue to debate on the rest of Part 2 but when the vote comes that is when it will be formally taken out. SIMON O'CONNOR: Thank you very much. I suspect the same is going to be true—so I better seek your guidance as I continue to debate then Mr Chair. Looking at the other amendment that I have here from the Hon Jonathan Coleman which is looking to insert two new clauses 79 and 80 at the end of Subpart 4. in this case we are looking at how we look at income-related rents and as the Chair is moving it probably would be good—The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes. SIMON O'CONNOR: —to ask the question that you will be formally ruling it out but at the moment you are indicating that it shall be? The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes. If it was going to be accepted then it would be part of a Part 4 debate. This is a Part 2 debate. So no there is no debate on that at this part. SIMON O'CONNOR: Well look I'll continue happily with the call because we're looking around accommodation supplements as that obviously was going to look at the amendments that were going to develop some changes there. But we do have to look first and foremost I think around areas for accommodation purposes. I know—having worked in the Ministry of Social Development many years ago—that in this bill as well there are different areas that have been put down and I suppose one of the challenges I want to put then to the Minister is why those areas have been chosen particularly in this day and age. He's looking very concerned all of a sudden. It is one of these days and ages where actually we have a whole lot better use of data particularly around geospatial technologies—which is another area of interest of mine. Why are we not actually looking to update those areas as well? We get a lot of focus these days on those four areas—we get a lot of focus particularly around Auckland. But having been—and am—an MP in Auckland I can tell the Minister right now that the accommodation needs in the likes of my area of Tāmaki vary differently from the likes of Ōrākei and St Heliers to right across the border into Glen Innes. Looking at that particular example in this legislation as proposed it doesn't matter if you are in something like St Heliers one of the best—well wealthiest but not the best. It is one of the wealthiest areas in the country. You're going to be able to receive the same effect of being in area 1 2 3 or 4 as someone who just a few streets down is living in Glen Innes which is also one of the best suburbs in the country but often has lower socio-economic groups. So what I'm suggesting here is we'd like some guidance from the Minister on why an opportunity wasn't taken to review the areas and why not link it to the whole geospatial technology. We now can get quite specific by area and there are two reasons for that—which I think need a little bit of elaboration Mr Chair but not too much. One is we have the technology around to be able to do this now—it's not as if we have to sort of pull out our abaci and work on things. The second is: why would we not take these opportunities to be more specific to be able to target New Zealanders more? I suppose that's been one of the wider debates that we've had here—one of the wider debates around specificity versus universality. I understand that this Government across this bill but particularly in Part 2 is trying to be relatively specific. I'm asking the question ultimately: why didn't the Minister choose to be even more specific in this regard around areas 1 to 4? I mean eight is a great number—very lucky in some communities. So I very much welcome as I conclude this call—and the Minister is looking enthusiastically to jump up. If he would like to address that seeing he hasn't been able to address—quite understandably from the Chair—the two amendments that have been ruled out of scope."