Upston Louise; Sepuloni CarmelHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Chair. I didn't get an answer to the question about whether or not—if someone isn't looking for work—they are classified as unemployed and whether or not the Minister believed the research that talks about the outcomes for children being worse for those who are raised in long-term benefit-dependent homes. I'm going to add another question to that: does she believe or understand that people financially have higher incomes if they are in work as opposed to a benefit? And I want to move on to my final theme which is about superannuitants and why the Government was quite happy to cut off the entitlements to superannuation for seniors who were stranded overseas through no fault of their own.I want to know what she would say to Nanette—who travelled to Melbourne to look after her daughter who had undergone major surgery—who said I feel we've actually been totally forgotten and ignored. Having our pension cut is not acceptable. There should be some sort of amnesty for people like us." There are hundreds of people like Nanette and this side of the House proposed a law change that would have supported those people. There are now some superannuitants—their only source of income—who not only had their pension cut but have been sent a bill for $16000 to pay the Ministry of Social Development back for money they are entitled to because they couldn't get back into New Zealand because of managed isolation and quarantine. No fault of their own—heartless cruel unkind. And I ask the Minister again: when shall she fix this issue for the thousands of New Zealanders affected?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Pot calling the kettle black! I'll start with that last issue. It has been an issue that's been in the media and certainly brought to my attention when people who have been on benefit or getting superannuation have been stranded overseas due to restrictions that have had to go in place because of COVID and the need to protect our borders. In all—if not most but all I'm sure—instances there has been notice given to New Zealanders who are overseas that they needed to return because the restrictions were going to be put in place. That doesn't mean that it was always easy to get back; that doesn't mean that it was easy to always get back.The fortunate thing is that in the legislation the chief executive has discretion to apply on a case by case basis where someone has a relevant valid case and then they won't get their superannuation cut. What I would encourage that member to do is rather than cast aspersions in the House over our handling of these be much more constructive and actually bring any cases where she thinks that the decision made was incorrect—where there needs to be a review of decision—because the review of decision policy is in place for a reason. Then certainly we would be willing to—we're not doing an amnesty because the law is in place for a reason and the discretion allows us to deal on a case by case basis. But if the member doesn't bring the cases to us that she's concerned about we will not be able to resolve the ones that she seems to have come across.The member raised before—and I want to go back to this—that she believes we are gutting the Children's Commission. We are certainly not doing that and I'm really glad and thankful to the select committee for the robust process that they have taken with regards to that legislation. That is what the select committee process is about: it is about getting insights from stakeholders and people who wish to submit because they feel passionately about the issue—to get their insights to take it away and then to see how we can then make that initial piece of legislation better. What that legislation is actually about is making sure we have got the mechanisms in place to be able to protect the children in State care. There are some things I don't resile from: one is that I do believe that having an advocacy arm having an independent monitoring mechanism and making more clear that it's the Ombudsmen that holds the responsibility for investigations and inquiry will strengthen the system. And fundamentally it's about those children.I think the member might have been raising the issue in regards to the possibility of having a board as opposed to a sole commissioner. There are some things I think that we can work on in that space but I will point out that one of the reasons why we thought having a board would be a good idea is to ensure that we do have Māori actively informed and part of that process with regards to the Children's Commission because to be honest that hasn't always occurred across the course of the years. And that's not saying that everyone that was non-Māori was not a good Children's Commissioner—I certainly wouldn't say that and they certainly have been—but it is important that we have Māori advocating for children through the Children's Commission and we haven't had it at the level that we needed to and we want to make sure that we have that moving forward.And the other issue—now I understand what the member was raising about the employment rate. So the member wants me to explain how we ascertain whether people are unemployed or not. The same formula that is used now was used under the previous Government; it was used under the Government before that and the Government before that I do believe. And it is about people actively seeking work and when they identify as actively seeking work and they're not in work then they are considered to be unemployed. There are a number of people who are not actively seeking work—particularly those that have health conditions or disabilities. Some may have care responsibilities that go beyond the average person's. So lots to respond to that member's question."