Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Minister just going back to this clause 179 which inserts new section 81A: I was referring previously—and you did answer thank you—to my question about new section 81A(3)(a) and new section 81A(3)(b). I need further clarification because I think there's a very large gap between what new section 81A(3)(a) allows for—a liable parent would have to pay more if the assessment requires it. In this case we're not talking about a private agreement between two parents who have separated amicably and have agreed on childcare arrangements for the children and have agreed on a division of responsibilities and who will be paying for certain things in the children's life which would be wonderful but it doesn't apply to most people who separate which is why Inland Revenue compulsorily takes the liable parent contribution. That assessment of what a liable parent is required to pay actually is often determined by an Inland Revenue staff member acting in the role set out here. Their assessment is essentially full and final so the liable parent I understand would find it very difficult to challenge or overturn an assessment because that's not what the system allows for. It's a very very blunt tool.So once a liable parent has been assessed and the money is being removed from them compulsorily typically through the PAYE system it's then paid by the liable parent to Inland Revenue who then distributes that money to the recipient to the receiving carer. I think that's where the very big gap is between your understanding of what this section allows for and what I understand it to mean. Because you're absolutely correct that if a receiving carer if their circumstances change and it turns out that they're not entitled to receive what they previously were and there's a decreased amount of child support payable to them—that's understandable. But this clause says nothing about the fact that the liable parent must continue to pay at the amount they were previously paying. All it says is that the liable parent if they are required to pay more must pay more. The receiving carer will receive less but it doesn't say anything. In fact it's absolutely silent on what I understand the process to be that the liable parent continues to have the money taken from them and paid to Inland Revenue but that Inland Revenue does not in fact have to pay it out to the receiving carer if it turns out the receiving carer is not entitled to it.So Minister I'd like you and your officials to respond to that because this is creating the impression that while the liable parent is required to pay more the receiving carer gets less—actually Inland Revenue banks the difference. Now we've heard from other members here who're concerned about the rate of interest payable on the use of money and that that appears in some way that Inland Revenue is in fact earning much more from that interest payable than even trading banks are at the moment on term deposits for example.Is this in fact another example of where Inland Revenue through sleight of hand or perhaps through an error or a misunderstanding of the English language has identified here in new section 81A(3)(a) that a liable parent can keep paying or is required to keep paying—the receiving carer gets less. But what happens to that big chunk of money in the middle that is coming from a liable parent's PAYE or whatever means Inland Revenue uses to compulsorily take that money? It would be extremely unfortunate if there's an error here in this bill—either by omission or commission. I mean this does refer to the commissioner so we assume it's by commission—where they intended to carve out this apparent exemption or ability for reassessment which actually ends up being to the monetary benefit of Inland Revenue. That would be extremely unfortunate. So Minister would you care to explain that please to the committee?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): There's not much to explain because I think the member is incorrect. I mean if a liable parent's position changes—for example if they lose their job or are overcome by an illness and can't make their liable parent contributions—they can at any time apply for a reassessment and that's provided for in law. Our liable parent contribution system which is administered by Inland Revenue is very unusual in the world and very good compared with the services that are offered by other countries in respect of the payment arrangements for children in the custody of a former partner. Indeed the new computer system the Inland Revenue has just finished transitioning to literally in the last couple of months is a Canadian system which is used by many States around the world and many countries around the world. Until it was updated to accommodate New Zealand's situation in respect of liable parent contributions it didn't have in that international software that capability. It was written into the system to deal with the New Zealand system. On a recent briefing note—because the licence terms that we have for that software give to all of the other countries or States in the world that use the software the benefit of upgrades in any other part of the world—the provisions in respect of liable parent contributions are now available to other countries in the world. I'm advised that that's stimulated some interest as to whether other countries could improve their settings to reflect ours which are very good in this regard.