Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): There were questions put to me by the last speaker—[Interruption]—and that was the honourable member—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! The Minister is attempting to answer questions. It would be courteous if members of the House listened. They have asked questions. I would suggest you would give the Minister a chance to answer those questions. I have made this ruling yesterday in another committee of the whole House. I'm being consistent in this matter. I call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: So the question that was put to me by the member Melissa Lee was with respect to the number of parents sanctioned the children affected and the amount of money to be gained or at least that was mentioned. So the information that I have from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is that the most recent statistics were 12000 parents sanctioned 24000 children affected in total and that the reduction was actually applied to 15000 children; so 25000 children in total living in those households. So not all of the children living in those households had a deduction applied to them but they were living in a household where the deduction was made. Despite the fact that it said that we know that the deduction is for one child $22 actually the average for those households in terms of the deduction is $34 which means that once we repeal this section then those households will be better off by $34 per week.It's been raised on numerous occasions that this is not fair. With respect to the absent parent—the parent that doesn't have the day-to-day care that is not named to MSD—can I just state that we have said over and over again on this side of the House it is our belief it is based on evidence that actually it should not be those women and the children in their households that are held to account for an absent parent.Also the information that I've been given with regards to the exemption criteria that was in place was that many women didn't actually feel comfortable disclosing to their MSD case manager that the reason they were choosing not to name the other parent was because of family violence situations and fear for their safety because of potential sexual assault or rape or in some cases incest. So sometimes the exemption wasn't applied because it just was not the type of conversation they wanted to have in the middle of a Work and Income office. Also we have heard horrendous stories over the years of where the sanction was inappropriately or wrongfully applied including where women were told they actually had to go and get a lawyer to sign a letter backing up their claim with respect to either not knowing the father at all or the family violence rape or incest situation. That was unlawful but the practice has actually resulted in situations that have not been conducive to supporting those women or their children. Hence why again we're doing what we are doing. But going back to the report that I tabled in the House the evidence is not there to support that in the first place it even incentivised the absent parent to pay the child support anyway. So as has been mentioned on numerous occasions we are not going to support a policy that doesn't have an evidence base. Some of the ideological rhetoric coming from the Opposition is very very predictable and I guess it's to be expected in this debate. Just to respond to a few more of the Supplementary Order Paper's (SOPs) I've responded to a number of them so a few more that are in front of me—one has been put forward with regards to our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) and wanting us to review it with the inference being that we are not responding appropriately to it as a country. Can I just say that it is consistent with the UNCROC obligation and this is considered as part of the development of the legislation. That is the official advice that we were given so we can clear that one up. I also got an SOP from the member Agnes Loheni with regards to wanting us to insert a new social obligation into the Act that would reintroduce the same obligation that is currently being repealed. We won't be doing that because that will contradict absolutely everything that we're standing here to talk about with regards to section 192. Then there also is an SOP that's a little bit left-field from Simon O'Connor with regards to an issue that isn't being traversed in this package at all but I will speak to it out of courtesy. He has asked that we insert a new clause 7A—insert new section 83A Child disability allowance payable overseas to members of Defence Force". That is actually not in line with any of the matters that we are discussing today. I would like to propose that if he sees a need in that area perhaps he finds another avenue for actually pursuing that. I don't believe something that is so far removed from what we're discussing here in the House needs to be entertained in any way at all. Thank you."