O'Connor SimonPart 6 AdministrationSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm not sure if we've been sent here tonight as a collective group to torture Matt King but—[Interruption] Look we have in many ways moved through a lot of the substance of the bill now. Part 6 however is quite long but is particularly around the administration of what we've been through. So as has been noted before this is a bill in 10 parts of about 600 pages. To be fair it is mainly the existing text with some rewrites. But Part 6 is titled Administration" and is broken down into a series of subparts which are really about how one applies inquires grants and commences benefits how one ends benefits the expiries and the payments and tax and deduction. So it's not the sexy part of the bill but it is sort of the engine if you will. Because it's the engine and because it needs to be an effective mechanism I do have a particular issue around clause 289A in Supplementary Order Paper 25 which is around the termination of the winter energy payment—so that's clause 289A.Simeon Brown: It is getting cold.SIMON O'CONNOR: I know it is getting cold here Mr Brown but that's not why I'm raising it. Look the winter energy payment has been done to death as a concept and I don't intend to relitigate that part of it. Simeon Brown: It is a dead concept.SIMON O'CONNOR: Someone has suggested it's a dead concept. But my concern really is the almost circular nature of how this particular clause—it's a new insertion by the Minister. In many ways why is it added here and why is it in the form that it is? The issue that we've got is we've got effective insertion almost randomly—that's indicated by the fact that it's clause 289A rather than a whole new number. It's just in between clause 289 which is about another benefit being more appropriate and clause 290 about certain benefits being granted. So it's unclear to me in terms of the legal progress why it's just randomly been inserted there.But the fundamental problem is that clause 289A here in Part 6 says "After the review"—whatever "the" review is. And that's a problem right from the start because it's using the definite article rather the indefinite article—that is "the" rather than "a". So what is "the" review? I would imagine again having been in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that there are reviews in the plural so you know I would expect the indefinite article. But then: "MSD may terminate a winter energy payment"—fortunately it's the payment not the person though that would also achieve the same end. But: "MSD may terminate a winter energy payment under section 65F". So what we have is a section here in Part 6 which then refers back to something in Part 2. The problem we run into immediately is clause 65F talks about "Winter energy payment: termination on review"—I'm not going to read the whole thing but then it says to terminate you have to go back to section 285 and also section 289A. So we start in Part 6 and Part 6 refers us to Part 2 and Part 2 then refers us back to Part 6. By this time I'm getting rather confused. Now some on that side might suggest it's a matter of mental ability but I don't think that's the case. So we've got a confused section fundamentally. Why is it put in here at this point? Why then is clause 289A referring back to Part 2?When you get to Part 2 you're immediately sent back to Part 6—in this case clause 285 in the first instance which is around the entitlement and rate payable. When you look at clause 285(1)(a) and this is in Part 6 it says that MSD may review a benefit—I'm expurgating here—where the beneficiary is or remains entitled to receive the benefit. Well one would assume that if someone has received the winter energy payment based on age—as I understand it that's how you receive it—it's sort of nonsensical to suggest that that may not remain. I suppose that could be a question of whether that's the fundamental criterion but we're not talking like a sickness benefit here where the condition may abate or change; we're talking about a winter energy payment based on a person's age and the season.So if you've gone from Part 6 back to Part 2 jumping back to Part 6 clause 285(1)(a) we're talking here that there remains—[Bell rung] Thank you very much. One of the things you learn the MP for Northland is a little bit of humility.But fundamentally what we've got here then as I said first and foremost is backwards and forwards within a situation where the termination of payment is based on say a remaining entitlement. So I suppose there's some confusion of—Kieran McAnulty: We want to hear from Matt King.SIMON O'CONNOR: He has put me off—that's right. It's one of the striking things that through the interjections of Mr McAnulty he's given about four speeches in this entire thing.But fundamentally clause 285(1)(a) is basically working out whether a winter energy payment continues on the original basis of entitlement. As I was saying if this was a sickness benefit it makes sense. You go back and you review because that illness may have gone dissipated or so forth or in such a way that someone can return to work. The winter energy payment—as I said its two legs are effectively age and effectively the season so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me why that's one of the reasons. Clause 285(1)(b) does make a lot of sense. Where the beneficiary was not entitled to receive the benefit I can certainly understand that MSD may review and decide for some reason—I don't know; for theory's sake that the person had fraudulently indicated their age forgot that they'd received the letter or something like that—that they may want to review it. But we just have a fundamental lack of clarity here in the way that it is completely structured.To make matters worse I would suggest once you've dealt with clause 285 which is relatively substantial—there's a series of other parts—well actually clause 285(3) then puts someone through an enormous process of review which again doesn't reflect the simplicity of clause 289A. All of a sudden someone who's receiving a fairly minimal contribution is now having to go through at least a series of reviews by the committee and appeal to authority the courts and even a medical board. So there's a proportionality question I think which is arising in the structure of this part and it all comes from the insertion of this termination of the winter energy payment in clause 289A and fundamentally why it turns back to section 65F. I haven't had the opportunity to table an amendment to make it clearer but actually there are I suspect and suggest ways of making clause 289 easier in nominating what would be the very particular reasons that one might terminate a winter energy payment.Again I think the fundamental point here is that this is in some ways an allowance by age and by season. It is not based on one's youth on one's employability on one's sickness illness solo parenthood or otherwise. So in effect what we're doing here or what is being done by introducing clause 289A in Part 6 is beginning to put New Zealanders who are receiving the winter energy payment into a rather complicated system of review and I think it's symbolically suggested by the very fact that we have to go to Part 2 which sends you back to Part 6.As I noted though once you've got to Part 2 it then also sends you back which is really confusing and I'm hoping the lawyers may assist me. While I've already I think indicated why it's odd to go from clause 289A—it says "Check out section 65F"; section 65F says "clause 285". It goes on to say "See also section 289A". In other words section 289A in Part 6 says "Go to clause 65F" and clause 65F says "Go and look at section 289A". This is a circular clause—a circular argument. It is nonsensical.Hon Member: I thought you were a monarchist Simon.SIMON O'CONNOR: It's policy circular—it's not only neutral this is policy circular. It makes no sense.Now look I am happy to admit—look even Her Majesty would be upset about this—The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sit down. Members do not bring Her Majesty into the debate at all.SIMON O'CONNOR: That's right. It is quite correct and the great thing about that is that there's another eight seconds. So marvellous! But really what I'm saying is that we've got effectively a circular debate here. So I'd really welcome the Minister if she's able to take a call today or obviously in future discussions on why this is so circular. As I said fundamentally clause 289A refers to Part 2 and that in itself just sends it straight back there."