Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. And thanks to the Minister for responding to our Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I'm disappointed that the Government won't be supporting this amendment to help make this bill more consistent with the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's (WEAG) recommendations. When the Minister was saying they haven't implemented it yet it's in progress this particular clause is going in the opposite direction from their recommendation. So that just doesn't feel consistent with the Government's messaging about implementing the recommendations of WEAG. And the point around costs—and maybe the Minister will clarify because when I'm looking at the regulatory impact statement the cost of this policy which I'm assuming is at $66 million and so the $90 million I'm assuming that's just—Andrew Bayly: $68 million.JAN LOGIE: Well it depends which page you're looking at Mr Bayly. There are differences on different pages I have noticed. I'm not quite sure how to explain them. I would point out also to the Minister saying that this is a flagship for the Government around addressing child poverty and progress is being made and the work around the Families Package I do absolutely acknowledge the really dire state we were in four years ago and a sense that just things were contracting and contracting. We were looking at the number of our children who were living in sheds and whose families were not able to have enough food to put on the table and it was so critically important to have that commitment to change that. We are going in the right direction—but the glacial pace of that when we know the lifelong costs of child poverty. It's a horrible thing to see a kid without shoes to see a kid getting rheumatic fever because of overcrowded homes to see a kid without food in their belly and their sense of disconnection to our community—that is a horrible thing to see. The problem I've got is I still see that. That is still the reality: the severe child poverty—still 160000 of our kids are in that place now. I'm not feeling the urgency with a $5 a week increase to the Working for Families tax credit.This leads me to our other SOP which is to extend the in-work tax credit which is embedded discrimination that has been recognised by our courts and it is justified as being there as an incentive to encourage people to work. But actually the Greens would argue the biggest disincentive to work is the effective marginal tax rate that comes through the abatement rates. And so how can we increase the abatement rate and not address that inequity between the in-work tax credit and the family tax credit? That shift alone would make a massive difference and would bring thousands more than the 3000 to 6000 who might just maybe get brought out of poverty according to the regulatory impact statement on this. They are very clear that they cannot be sure of the statistics around the 3000 to 6000 who might be brought out by this $5 a week increase. It just does not feel commensurate to the challenges our families are facing at the moment.We know those lines for the foodbanks the numbers of people coming into Work and Income to ask for food grants because the basic core supports are not enough—they are just not enough. And we're putting people into more debt that actually reduces their core income because we're making them go into debt to cover their immediate needs. None of that makes sense to the Green Party and we really would love to see the support for removing the discrimination to incentivising people into work and to actually showing some real guts in our commitment to reducing child poverty.