Menéndez March Ricardo; Sosene Lemauga LydiaRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. This picks up nicely from what the Minister just talked about in relationship to being better off in employment. I won't relitigate stuff from Part 1 but I do want to pick up on the fact that there is a missed opportunity in this bill too. Because of the reversal to inflation adjustment main benefit changes it's interesting that in Part 2 in relationship to the minimum family tax credit there is no update to the abatement threshold for inflation. I do have an amendment here in relationship to that that would actually update the abatement thresholds in line with inflation.I guess my question is: how can she be confident that the settings that we have adequately support people into employment when the abatement threshold for the minimum family tax credit is so out of date and does not reflect the incomes that have grown over time or real costs that families experience? Because that means that in terms of real purchasing power and wages that people earn people actually will have that income abated at a rate that would have been faster than in 2006. So my question is: does she think that by leaving those abatement thresholds not fully updated she's actually creating a perverse outcome in not adequately supporting people into employment? And if so then how can not updating those abatement thresholds stand up to the statements she has made previously around her focus being supporting people into employment?LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you for the opportunity to ask this question on Part 2. Minister I wanted to ask you in terms of arriving at the explanation that we have here in the paper what engagement or consultation you have specifically had with parents or the community who will be affected by this legislation change once it passes because there are many families in our community where the cost of living is really important and they are suffering. So if there are changes from the way it is indexed that is going to mean—although I have heard earlier contributions from $2; however the figure is an $18 loss in their income per week. Can you explain to me to help me understand what specific engagement you have had with the community.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you—sorry I was just laughing because some of us were competing for a call. Subsequent to my questions in relationship to abatement thresholds I was curious to see if she had done any distributional impact analysis on the changes to the minimum family tax credit and particularly with the abatement thresholds as they are. I wanted to pick that up because of the fact that we do have a relatively large number of people who are working part-time and who may not be working those 40 hours and who have a varying degree of income.A lot of the people who are working part-time who may be receiving some form of income support are parents are people who may be studying are people who may be juggling other caregiving responsibilities—because we know this from the debate on Part 1 in relationship to the impacts on child poverty. I wonder whether there is a missed opportunity to at least mitigate some of the harm done in Part 1 by actually having a minimum family tax credit that adequately supported those people in part-time work.And subsequent to that does she know who the communities are who could most benefit from having the abatement threshold changed or does she know who is actually losing the most by keeping the abatement threshold as it is right now?