8. Beneficiaries—Reduction in Numbers and Outcomes for People Leaving BenefitsHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentBeneficiaries—Reduction in Numbers and Outcomes for People Leaving BenefitsHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Social Development and asks: does she plan to reduce the number of people on benefits; if yes how does she plan do this?Mr SPEAKER: Sorry if so" I think—"if so".Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I'll repeat the question: how does she plan to reduce the number of people on benefits and if so how does she plan to do this? Mr SPEAKER: Sorry I apologise. I might—can someone give me a yellow sheet? It appears that—no I think she actually got it right. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. She said "how does she plan to reduce" not "does she plan to reduce" so there was a difference in the way it was asked. I think she may have said it right the first time—but just a bit confused. Mr SPEAKER: Let's just answer the one that was written down all right? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Sure. 8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she plan to reduce the number of people on benefits; if so how does she plan do this?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Of course we do but we intend for people to be better off not just off benefit. One part of our plan for achieving this will be by investing in the upskilling and training of New Zealanders who find themselves out of work. Hon Louise Upston: If the number on sole parent benefits is the lowest since 1989 how much lower in numeric terms or as a percentage will the Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government reduce it? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We're not going to set crude targets like that side of the House did when they were in Government because clearly those crude targets do not work given that when they left office there were 72000 young people that were not in education or employment; given that when they left office there had been a steady decline for four years of people going off benefit and into upskilling and training; and given that when they left office 43 percent of those who had cancelled a benefit had done so because they'd obtained work but 57 percent had not. Hon Louise Upston: If the Minister agrees with the Prime Minister about child poverty targets to reduce the impact of child poverty how many fewer children will live in benefit-dependent homes this year? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said we're not going to set crude targets but what we will be doing is ensuring that the parents of those children are better off. I need to remind the Opposition that when they were in Government one of their first moves was to cut the training incentive allowance which supported many of the mothers of those children—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it acceptable for a Minister to say "We're not going to rely on crude targets." but then go and rely on exactly the sort of targeting that she's mentioning to give her answer?Mr SPEAKER: I think it might have been marginal but I think she was probably just within bounds.Hon Louise Upston: Is she considering in terms of her changes the 100 percent sanctions on parents on benefit which was in place under Labour or the more compassionate maximum of 50 percent which National introduced?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What we will be doing is reviewing the sanctions that are in place and ensuring that any that have not achieved the objective that they were intended to achieve or any that have negative implications for children will be reassessed and potentially removed.Greg O'Connor: What is one of the strategies that the Minister is using to ensure that Ministry of Social Development (MSD) clients are successful at moving into genuine paid work?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Strategically we must reassess the culture of Work and Income New Zealand. As part of this we're looking at some of the more effective case managers and how they help people into work. What they have in common is that they are incredibly empathetic build trust and rapport and make the system work for their clients. We want this to be how all New Zealanders are treated when they require support from MSD.Jan Logie: Will the Minister continue to focus on numbers without any care for the well-being of people?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely not. Crude targets for simply kicking people off benefits do not work. I'm not interested in setting crude targets or simply counting people being off benefit as a success. We need to be thinking about improving well-being and work that is meaningful and sustainable. Unfortunately under the former Government 33 percent of those who had been surveyed by the social policy evaluation and research unit ended up back on the benefit after two years having been on one because they weren't supported into sustainable employment in the first place.Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What we got there Mr Speaker and we've had it a couple of times—and I accept I didn't interject at the first available opportunity but on this one I think I have—is questions from the member's own side and then an attack on—Mr SPEAKER: No. No. The member will resume his seat. That wasn't an attack.Jan Logie: Will the Minister continue to focus on pushing people off benefits—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: New Zealand First have just lost a supplementary and it's not one that can be transferred from the Labour Party to New Zealand First.Jan Logie: Will the Minister continue to focus on pushing people off benefits without caring whether they are living in sheds their children are going hungry or they are being forced into unsafe situations because they don't have enough money to survive?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You've got pretty hard on the sort of questions that can come from this side of the House and fair enough: you're trying to cut some new standard. But there is no way that that question as it's just asked meets any of the standards that you are asking us to accept.Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask Jan Logie to repeat her question. I was momentarily distracted checking that I hadn't taken a question away from people who had none left.Jan Logie: Happily. Will the Minister continue to focus on pushing people off benefits without caring whether they are living in sheds their children are going hungry or they are being forced into unsafe situations because they don't have enough money to survive?Mr SPEAKER: I am prepared to rule on it. I'm ruling that those situations are actual situations and it is not an ironic question.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely not. This Government is putting people at the heart of every decision we make. We will not be pushing people off benefits just to make numbers look good. We will be building a culture where the services we offer—Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to seek clarification on that. I think it was yesterday when we asked about forestry drug testing as an example. You said that that required evidence of that. I'm just wondering how this one fits but that one didn't. Can I seek your very learned guidance on that.Mr SPEAKER: Yes and I listened very very carefully to the question and I ruled that it was completely within order and did not contain ironic expressions. Has the Minister finished or is she—Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No.Mr SPEAKER: No. But I'd ask her to finish relatively quickly please.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We will be building a culture where services we offer—Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: No. The member is now trifling with the Chair and will resume his seat. We will have the end of this answer.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This Government will focus on supporting people into genuine paid work not penalising them with excessive sanctions that fail to achieve the purpose they were set up for. It's a shame the previous Government couldn't do the same.Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order. Just the reference at the end of the Minister's answer in relation to the previous Government—I think there's been a couple of those references in this particular series of supplementary questions. You've been quite focused and I think rightly so on making sure you draw that line. I'd just appreciate it if that's going to continue.Mr SPEAKER: I am watching very carefully and I'm not using the previous Minister's approach as my standard. I'm much tighter than the member used to be when he was a Minister and I'm going to continue to try to be. The Hon Simon Bridges—a fresh point of order?Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A completely different fresh point of order?Hon Simon Bridges: I'm certainly not seeking to trifle Mr Speaker. My question is about authentication not whether there are unnecessary epithets or anything of that nature. It was simply a question of—Mr SPEAKER: So is the member now going to try and review a supplementary question that's been asked and answered? [Interruption] Well no the member's not going to try. But while I'm on my feet I am going to make clear to Jan Logie that we don't have political slogans clearly apparent in the way that she has. Thank you.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just say as a matter of seeking your clarification here that Ms Logie set out her question in a way that the present Government could own up to it or not. That's the way it was couched—Mr SPEAKER: Yes and—Mr Peters if you can resume your seat—I have indicated to Mr Bridges that he is so late with his point of order that I'm not even going to bother ruling on it. We've gone past that point.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A new and fresh point of order?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes two. The first one is I note that Mr Peters just asked for a point of clarification which you previously explained today—Mr SPEAKER: Yes yes. I got there eventually.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well it was a bit of a long way round. The other point would be that it's a little bit difficult when you rule that "We will now hear the rest of this question." when the member had been calling for a point of order before you made that ruling and then to come around afterwards and say "Well now you cannot go back to that." simply because it's already been heard.Mr SPEAKER: OK. Right well I want to assure the member that I had not heard Mr Bridges. He is not normally someone with a quiet voice and can I ask him if he does have a point of order—I don't want to encourage him to have them—that he feels is a genuine point of order to use his loud outside voice. Thank you. Right we're finished there."