6. Question No. 6—Social DevelopmentHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 6—Social Development6. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: What changes if any to sanctions and obligations for sole parents is she considering that were proposed by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Reviewing key sanctions to improve child wellbeing is a priority for this Government. This is clearly outlined in the Cabinet paper Welfare Overhaul: Advice from the Welfare Expert Advisory Groups and Next Steps available online. That's why we've already passed legislation to repeal the sanction for not naming the other parent in section 192 of the Social Security Act. We are also reviewing the subsequent child policy and seeking further advice on the other sanctions suggested by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. It is important to note that recent research has highlighted that policies that reduce income—for example through sanctions—are associated with negative child behavioural and developmental outcomes. Hon Louise Upston: What is the cost to the Crown of the removal of the sanction where the liable parent is not named?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Removing section 192 which will mean that women and children are not bearing the cost or thrown further into hardship is $113 million over four years. There are approximately 24000 children living in those households. Those households will be better-off because of repealing that section 192 by $34 per week and this Government is proud of the fact that we have made the decision to repeal section 192.Hon Louise Upston: How much child support won't now be collected from liable parents as a result of that change?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The advice that I was given by the Ministry of Social Development and the advice that the previous Government was given in 2016 was that there was no evidence to support that the intention of the policy had been reached. The estimates are out there as is always the case. It really is a matter of making sure that these families are better-off.Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe sole parents should have obligations to ensure their children are attending school?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Under the previous Government social obligations were implemented through the welfare system. In the Cabinet paper that I spoke about before that is not something that we are initially looking at; however I would like to mention that actually no sanctions have had to be imposed because of breaches of social obligations. I do think that the other side of the House and the previous Government underestimate the parents who are in the welfare system and the fact that they care for their children as well.Hon Louise Upston: Will she be removing the subsequent child rule which means that sole parents have obligations to look for part-time work when a subsequent child is one?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are reviewing that policy because where children are punished through the welfare system we have concerns and our objective here is to make sure that child wellbeing is at the heart of everything that we do. We do want to review that policy to check that that is the case and we have concerns that the previous Government didn't have their best intention at heart.Hon Louise Upston: How many more children does she think is acceptable for someone already on the sole parent benefit to have or does she think there should be no limit?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I never fail to be shocked by the judgment and the stigmatisation of women in the welfare system that the previous Government and the National Party continue to purport. We have a much more positive view of women in the welfare system. We're investing in upskilling and training. We're investing in opportunities for employment. We've put more money into front-line case managers to support work focus in Work and Income offices. We believe in the potential of these women. We want to support them into employment where they are able to work. We also want to be able to support them to care for their children.Hon Louise Upston: How many more children living in benefit-dependent homes and therefore hardship is she projecting based on the changes she's considering?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Under this Government—and it's not just through the welfare system; it's across all of Government—we have an absolute focus on child wellbeing and child poverty reduction. Our absolute aspiration is that these children are able to reach their potential and that they're supported to do so. That's what we are focused on. We're not going to be taken down the negative track that that side of the House would like us to go down.