Skip to main content

Has MSD undertaken any analysis of the likely impact of retrospective reassessment under the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill on clients aged 60 years or older; if so, what were the findings? and 3 other questions

Answered 5360, 5361, 5362, 5363 (2026)
Questions published
Reply lodged

Asked by

Oriini Kaipara

Member for Tāmaki Makarau · Te Pāti Māori

Questions

  • 5360

    Has MSD undertaken any analysis of the likely impact of retrospective reassessment under the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill on clients aged 60 years or older; if so, what were the findings?

  • 5361

    Has MSD undertaken any analysis of the likely impact of retrospective reassessment under the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill on recipients of sensitive claims under ACC; if so, what were the findings?

  • 5362

    Has MSD undertaken any analysis of the likely impact of retrospective reassessment under the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill on households with dependent children; if so, what were the findings?

  • 5363

    Has MSD undertaken any distributional analysis of the expected impacts of the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill by ethnicity; if so, what are the projected impacts for Māori?

    Original response/referral lodged:

Answered by

Hon Louise Upston

Member for Taupō · National Party · Minister for Social Development and Employment

Answer

I am advised that the Ministry of Social Development (Ministry) is unable to provide the information sought by the Member within a written parliamentary question timeframe as it would take substantial effort and require the Ministry to divert personnel from their core duties. In accordance with Speaker’s Ruling 210/6, I consider that the time, and hence the expense, of answering these questions within this timeframe is not in the public interest. This is also my response to WPQ’s 5361, 5362, & 5363