Luxton Jo; Russell DeborahHon JO LUXTON (Labour): Because we aren't having a select committee process and there isn't the ability for people to come and submit on this particular piece of legislation I asked the Minister a question before and he said he addressed it but he actually has not addressed two of the questions I asked before—the first one being: why were parents not consulted as part of this and why was there not any work done on the fees that centres provide in order to make this bill more practical? Those were just the questions that the Minister didn't answer but I just wanted to get back in front of him again.I wanted to follow on from a point that my colleague Tangi Utikere made around retrospectivity of this legislation. I want to know if I'm a parent and I miss out on making my quarterly submission to IRD whether I can save it up and do it the next time and whether I can in fact save my whole year's worth and do it in one lump sum so I get myself quite a little pocket full of cash at the end of the day. So I really appreciate if the Minister could actually answer the questions I've asked.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I do want to dig into some of the really technical aspects of this bill now.So the first clause I want to look at is clause 9 of the bill and what it does it inserts new section GB 44B and it's an anti-fraud provision—that's what that section of the Act is all about. So what it says is basically if someone enters into an arrangement and the purpose of that arrangement is to defeat the purpose of new Subpart MH—whatever the new Subpart MH which is the FamilyBoost tax credits"—then the tax credit is "reduced to the amount the Commissioner considers would have arisen had the arrangement not occurred."So basically someone could if they want to try to get around the system maybe submit some invoices that weren't actually correct or they could make some claims that weren't correct and they could get some money but then the commissioner could go and overturn them and get that money back. So it's pretty standard saying "All right mate you've tried this one on but we're going to take that back."What I want to understand from the Minister—I mean that just reverses the payment back out and ensures that no one gets any childcare rebate that they're not entitled to. But will there also be a penalty attached to anyone who tries to pull a swiftie? Because I guess we've got a really well-known phenomenon of people who try to pull a swiftie over at the Ministry of Social Development on benefits and the like getting pretty soundly punished for that in many ways. There's some really interesting work done by Professor Lisa Marriott showing that we are far more punitive towards benefit fraud than we are towards tax fraud. So this is an interesting one—whether it's a benefit or a tax part.But I would like to understand from the Minister as the first of my technical questions is whether there is any penalty associated with entering into an arrangement. Now I'm not talking about where someone's just made a mistake. You can totally get that a busy and flustered parent might accidentally load up the wrong invoice or might repeat an invoice from one quarter because they just lost track of something because people do get busy and get flustered and things do go wrong. So that obviously probably couldn't meet the level for it to be deemed an arrangement. Arena Williams: A mum and dad with little babies.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yeah that's right. But there's a circumstance where someone does deliberately set out to defeat the system and the money's been gotten back but is there going to be a penalty associated with it as well? I'd like to know that."