Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I look forward to the other side of the House receiving the report that I tabled some while ago in this House. Can I just say that I tabled that report despite the fact that it is publicly available online but out of courtesy to that member and concern that she may not know how to use the internet I thought it worthwhile tabling it. Anyway thank you.Brett Hudson: Well National knows how to use the internet Minister.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Thank you very much. It's been tabled.I'm so glad that there's such enthusiasm in the House today for welfare legislation that is going through and in fact I have to say publicly to the New Zealand public who can watch this that we have nearly a full house of National Opposition MPs in here—unfortunately not in support of this legislation necessarily—because they always turn out in numbers when welfare is up for discussion. So it's wonderful there's enthusiasm and I'm really enjoying going through the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been tabled in the House from the diligent members of the Opposition. I will go through some of the questions that have been asked as well as respond to some of SOPs that have been tabled. I was asked earlier about the fiscal implications for repealing section 192. As stated in the Budget document it is $113 million over four years. That's also online now.Can I say that with regards to whether or not repealing section 192 will have an impact on our forecasted benefit numbers I have been told by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that it has no impact on our forecasted benefit numbers. We had the Hon Nick Smith in the House making assertions that the analysis that has been done states that the repealing of section 192 does not have any impact on forecasted benefit numbers. So section 192 is not anticipated to result in increases in sole parent beneficiaries.We had questions asked about the Child Support Act. The Child Support Act stands. The difference is now that MSD is no longer responsible for monitoring the Child Support Act. That actually is the responsibility of the Inland Revenue Department and I think that that's quite appropriate actually.With regards to incentivising the other parent to pay there are recommendations in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's report and I think we should give those due consideration over time. As I've said actually—and I think my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan said this earlier—there are actually about 20 of the 42 recommendations that currently have work going on under them. I think the Opposition needs to read them very carefully because the 42 recommendations are not really a tick-box kind of exercise which I know members opposite would prefer. They're actually much more complex and a lot of them require ongoing work and so some of that work has already started. I'm quite glad about the fact that there's work under way now in about 20 of those areas.There are other questions that have been raised in this House. Let me go through these amendments. We've got two SOPs here that are kind of a little bit contradictory but I'll speak to them anyway. One is actually asking that we push out the time of implementation and that is with respect to the section 192 repeal. So it's asking us that instead of doing it in 2020 we hold off implementing it until 2021—they're wanting us to take our time with looking at the impact of that and so pushing it out a year. But then there's another SOP that we've been presented with that actually asks us to bring an element of this package forward and that is the indexation. So it is asking us to bring that forward to July 2019. So I think it's very interesting that the Opposition wants to divide up this package and on the one hand asks us to bring something right forward and then on the other hand asks us to push something right out. We would like to take a much more commonsensical approach to how we deliver legislation in this House and so I think that the approach that we've taken actually makes sense and we won't be doing what has been asked of us by the Opposition.We've had requests by the Opposition to report annually on outcomes for children in benefit-dependent households. I actually think that that's a valid recommendation and it's something that is in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's report. It's something that we will be considering as the Government and I look forward to exploring further as part of phase two of the work that we are doing to implement the recommendations in the report. It's parked for now because it requires a lot of work with respect to how we would do that and how we would do that sensibly. I'm sure that when we do get around to doing that the general public will want us to do that in a considered way.I do want to reflect on the fact that now because of this Government and with the support of the National Opposition actually we are at least reporting on child poverty targets annually and of course given that 60 percent of children living in poverty are actually in beneficiary households that is a consideration in that annual report as we report on our targets and make sure that we're doing all that we can do to achieve some real progress in that space. I know that there are lots of other questions and so I might take a seat now and then I'll take many more contributions I am sure from the Opposition and I look forward to responding.