5. Question No. 5—Social Development and EmploymentJAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 5—Social Development and Employment5. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is the Government still committed to welfare overhaul; if so why does the Child Poverty Action Group report released today show not a single key recommendation from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group has been fully implemented nearly three years on?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes and we are making good progress on the overhaul. This progress includes the biggest lift in benefits in decades reversing the cuts made in 1991. The Child Poverty Action Group do great work but their report released today does not highlight the extensive policy work under way and it assumes every recommendation has a finish line. We've always been very upfront: these reforms require massive structural change and will take time. Transformation needs to be well thought through and coherent to be effective. Alongside the benefit rise our progress has included removing the sanctions which impact children the most investing $5.5 billion through the Families Package increasing the minimum wage to $20 indexing benefits to average wage increases raising abatement thresholds investing heavily in job training and increasing our public housing supply. There is more to do—I have never shied away from that—but the mahi is getting done.Jan Logie: Thank you Mr Speaker. Why has she removed many of the 2020 COVID19 supports or made them time limited when these were all recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) and supposedly accepted in principle by the Government?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would refute that. I think one of the clear areas of recommendation in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report was around investment in upskilling and training and employment opportunities. COVID and the pandemic in general really did impress on the Government the need to bring forward much of that investment and that work and that continues to this point and will continue moving forward.Jan Logie: What is her response to the report which finds—and I'll quote—If [the] welfare reform had happened on the [time line] envisaged by WEAG communities would have had the financial resilience to face the challenges of Covid-19 [pandemic] with … confidence. As it is the government's slow pace of reform is increasing Covid-19-related inequity and distress jeopardising public health measures."?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Again I'd refute the slow pace. I totally would accept though that there is more to do and we certainly at certain points have been able to outline our time frame and what is in the short- medium- and long-term time frames with regards to implementation of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's recommendations. I won't deny that COVID did throw a bit of a spanner in the works; it meant that some things came forward and other things were pushed back. With regards to responding to the income needs of families experiencing hardship particularly those in the welfare system we did move very quickly to index benefits to wages. We did in April last year immediately implement an increase in benefits and then again this year through the Budget which saw an immediate implementation in July and more will come into effect in April next year. That's alongside a suite of other measures. Again I will not deny that there is more to do but I will refute the idea that we haven't actioned the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations and that we haven't been consistently overhauling the welfare system since we got into Government.Terisa Ngobi: What else has this Government done that responds to the WEAG report and is part of the welfare overhaul work programme?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There is a range of work under way that responds to the recommendations in the report. This work has been carried out across many Government departments. Examples include establishing a new Ministry for Disabled People beginning a full reform of the health sector investing more into out-of-school care and recreation and after-school care programmes supporting families through more lunches in schools consenting more new homes than any Government since the 1970s delivering over a thousand new transitional and 8000 public housing places and reforming the culture at the Ministry of Social Development and changing the physical environment to make it more inclusive and accessible. I acknowledge there is more to do but it is important to take stock and acknowledge what has already been done.Jan Logie: Will she now accelerate WEAG recommendations to further lift incomes in light of the Child Poverty Monitor report which shows Māori and Pasifika and disabled tamariki are experiencing up to twice the levels of hardship as their peers?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As announced at Budget there were benefit increases that really do restore the benefit or incomes to a point that fixes what was done in 1991. There's more to do but I do want to also state that in terms of addressing child poverty it's not just about what happens in the welfare system or with the Ministry of Social Development. It is about ensuring that we have programmes like Food in Schools that we do address issues like access to period products that we do address issues like access to healthcare. Many of these things have been addressed and continue to be addressed by this Government and we do need to make sure that alongside our focus on the welfare system we are looking at other spaces to address child poverty as well.Jan Logie: How can she claim to be honouring the WEAG when modelling shows that if increases to core benefits in the family tax credit had happened in April 2019 as intended a family with three children would be $18700 better off in April next year?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think the most recent information I saw highlighted that a sole parent on benefit now is about $175 better off per week than what they were in 2017 when we took office and that's not including the winter energy payment. There is more to do but we have seen significant improvements with regards to income adequacy since we got into Government.Jan Logie: Does she agree with the comments of the children's commissioner that an equitable poverty response which prioritises tamariki Māori and disabled children would increase benefits to livable levels and restore dignity to whānau Māori; if not why not?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are absolutely focused on Māori Pacific and disabled children and do know what the evidence shows us and what we see and that is that they are disproportionately impacted by poverty. Many of the changes that we have put in place through our welfare overhaul and in other aspects of our Government programme have been completely focused on addressing those inequities and ensuring that those children are lifted out of poverty. We have made some traction but we acknowledge there is more to do.Jan Logie: When will we see any of the WEAG recommendations fully implemented?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said at the beginning this is not a simple tick-box exercise. If I only look at say increasing our public housing stock which was clearly indicated in the welfare expert advisory group's report I can say that we have been able to do that as a Government. But it's not a matter of that job having been completed. We are committed to continuing to build more public housing and continuing to focus on ensuring that we are able to provide the housing for New Zealanders that is needed. But we can't tick that one off; nor can we tick many of the others because they are about consistently focusing on those recommendations and ensuring that we are committed to continually responding to them.SPEAKER: Before I call Dr Liz Craig for the next question I just want to indicate to members because I saw some disappointment in one quarter of the House as to the allocation of the timing of supplementary questions then—I refer people to Speakers' rulings 180/5 and 180/6 which indicate first of all that no one has a right to a supplementary question at all. But more importantly the rulings of Harrison and Wall not the substantive part but the very first line or line or two are that it is the practice to give the member who asked the primary question the first supplementary; actually it's been my practice to give them the first two and after that if other members go for it I will move around the House. Generally if members want to have two supplementary questions I'll give them straight away rather than breaking it up. I just think the flow works a bit better there. But I did feel some evil looks at me at that particular point.Hon Members: Ha ha!SPEAKER: Well I'll just make it clear: more evil looks than normal."