12. Beneficiaries—Welfare Reform and ReportsCARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentBeneficiaries—Welfare Reform and Reports12. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: Is she concerned that the SuPERU report released last week showed that 1 in 4 former beneficiaries return to the benefit within 24 months after they come off?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes. We are always concerned when beneficiaries return to dependency and in 2013 the Government introduced welfare reforms that made significant changes to the benefit system. It is important to note that this research by the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) looked at people between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2011—before those 2013 welfare reforms—and that is important because this data then gives us a good baseline for examining changes post-reform when the data becomes available. But we could be much more positive about this and say that three out of four have not returned to a benefit within 2 years and the Government continues to make changes to the benefits system to better support New Zealanders. In Budget 2016 we invested an extra $111 million over 4 years to help more people into employment—most specifically by extending the Youth Service to 19-year-old parents.Carmel Sepuloni: Given that yesterday in the select committee SuPERU officials said that they could analyse the outcomes for beneficiaries post - welfare reforms why has she not requested that information of them? Is it because she is worried that the outcomes for the post - welfare reform period will be even worse than previously?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No the member is absolutely incorrect. I have requested that post-reform information but because the Taylor Fry report conducted by SuPERU used the Ministry of Social Development's Integrated Data Infrastructure data the ministry can do that itself and we do not have to pay outside consultants.Carmel Sepuloni: If moving off a benefit is so good for parents and their children—and there are now according to the Minister 50000 fewer children with parents on a benefit—why are there not 50000 fewer children living in material hardship and why has there been a 35 percent increase in hardship assistance grants in the last year?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Anne Tolley—two supplementary questions.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well the member is absolutely wrong. In this House last week I think it was when the data was produced by the Salvation Army even its tables showed that in fact there had been a reduction in the number of children experiencing hardship. So the member is absolutely wrong and more importantly to conflate those two actually messes up completely different data.Carmel Sepuloni: Given that SuPERU was unable to determine the main outcome of 18 percent of former beneficiaries does she now agree with the Salvation Army report that Just what has happened to these people and whether they are better or worse off is a mystery."?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No I do not agree with the Salvation Army and in fact with the next piece of research we are looking to try to track down what does happen to the people who come off benefit. As we have said in this House before people make all sorts of decisions in their lives. What the data shows clearly is that it is in the best interests of people and their children not to be dependent on welfare for long periods of their lives. That certainly does lead to child poverty.Carmel Sepuloni: How can she continue to celebrate benefit reductions when most people who come off a benefit do not remain in employment after 24 months 85000 to 90000 children still live in severe material hardship and 45 percent of these children living in poverty have parents who are working?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well the member has to make it clear that she is working on data from that study that goes back 5 years. That is baseline data and we are conducting more surveys to see what happens post-reforms. But the evidence is very clear: if people remain on welfare for a long period of time their children do worse in school they are more likely to have a Child Youth and Family notification they are more likely to be referred to the police for family violence and they are more likely to be very poor. In this Government we have had a Minister talking about social investment. That is about intervening early effectively and in a coordinated way to help people make their lives better."