Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to be talking on the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. It's very good to hear the Minister—I've got to compliment her for standing up and answering the questions that have been put to her. I've got to say I totally agree with what she's just said. That is we do want to see people working where they can and if possible and part-time work is a pathway to full-time work in many occasions. So that's what we believe in the National Party and that's a strong underlying tenet of any change that should be brought about. We all know that for those who do work the dignity that comes with that the improvement in their living standards and consequential social and health outcomes are so radically improved through getting into work that that is a vital part of making sure that we assist anyone and everyone into work where possible.Just in terms of this particular legislation I thought my colleague Mr Penk made an excellent contribution. Just before we carry on for many of the people sitting at home now late on a Friday—I presume there are not many glued to the TV at work; most of them will be out enjoying themselves socially—it's interesting to just sort of recap on what we're trying to achieve here and I'm talking particularly in relation to the veterans abatement component. The abatement rates refer to the amount of money that someone on a benefit can earn while they're employed before it affects their main benefit—i.e. if you were earning some money outside if you're getting a benefit then there's an abatement if you're earning more than what you otherwise might have got just on your benefit. So for instance if you're earning between $100 and $200 there will be under current rules a 30c reduction in the dollar to the pension such as what we're talking about here under the veterans pension. If you earn over $200 that increases to 70c in the dollar. So this abatement thing is a really crucial part.The indexing is about tying those benefits to the percentage increase in the net average wage rather than the Consumers Price Index (CPI) as it currently is and I'm going to return to that in a moment. But I just want to talk about this issue around abatements because in section 171 Abatement of veteran's pension" it states that "(3) Regulations made under section 265 [will] increase an amount of an abatement threshold (prescribed by regulations of that kind) for abatement of a veteran's pension under section 161 or 164—" and under paragraph (a)—this is the crucial part—"must state the date on which they are to have effect (which may be a date before the date on which they were made);". So the important thing is—and this is something I'd like the Minister to respond to—is this a retrospective section? This could work against the favour of the person receiving that abatement—namely a veteran. That could mean that a veteran ends up earning less income. That is actually a bad thing.I don't think anyone in this committee even looking across the other side would like to see a rule come in where a veteran thought he or she was entitled to a certain level of income probably has gone out and spent it—because a lot of our veterans aren't earning a lot of money and they're getting a veteran's pension for a reason—and then finds that they're being cut down at the knees by a Minister or a commissioner who has come in and decided to change the rules. I think that is a very worrying thing.The other thing is that the indexing is about tying benefits to the percentage increase in the net average wage rather than CPI as it currently is. I thought it was interesting. I've just been sitting here looking at some of the numbers and one of the things to me is this move from CPI to this definition of average ordinary time weekly income or earnings. I think it's interesting—I looked at the series of CPI figures from March 1989 right through—[Time expired]"